WeVote
Log In

Bill

KB

Bill

HB 6092

Criminal procedure: DNA; postconviction DNA testing; modify. Amends sec. 16, ch. X of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 770.16).

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Kelly Breen and 16 co-sponsors

Michigan HB 6092 broadens access to postconviction DNA testing, requiring court-ordered, newer-technology testing that could yield a new trial if material is relevant and available

bill electronically reproduced 06/16/2026
#criminalprocedure:dna
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 6092

Purpose and overall aim

HB 6092 would modify Michigan’s postconviction DNA testing regime by amending section 16 of Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure (MCL 770.16). The bill’s core objective is to expand and streamline opportunities for defendants to seek DNA testing of biological material from the investigation that led to their conviction, potentially enabling new trials based on DNA results. It applies to felony convictions and outlines when testing can be requested, the process, standards for court action, and consequences of testing outcomes.

Key provisions and changes

  • Eligibility and petition grounds (subsection 1):

    • For defendants convicted of a felony at trial before January 8, 2001: may petition for DNA testing and a new trial if serving a prison sentence.
    • For felony convictions at trial on or after January 8, 2001: may petition if they show that:
    • DNA testing was already performed, or results were inconclusive, or current DNA technology could yield conclusive results; or
    • DNA testing was not performed or was performed under circumstances enabling newer, more accurate testing, or the court finds it in the interest of justice.
    • The petition must establish materiality of the biological material to the case.

  • Where petitions are filed (subsection 2): Filed in the circuit court for the sentencing county and served on the prosecuting attorney.

  • Material identification and discovery (subsection 3): Petitions must allege that biological material was identified during investigation. If the defendant cannot locate the material, a court may order a hearing to determine availability and direct agencies to search and report results.

  • Initial criteria for court-ordered testing (subsection 4): The court must order testing if the defendant shows prima facie that the material is material to identity, and clear and convincing evidence that:

    • Material is available for testing.
    • Material has not been tested, or would be tested with newer technology.
    • Identity of the defendant as perpetrator was at issue at trial.

  • Findings and records (subsections 5-6): Courts must document findings on the record. If testing is granted, material and a defendant sample are tested by a court-approved lab; if indigent, the state bears the cost. Results go to the court, defendant, and prosecutor, with possible sharing of testing records upon request.

  • Outcomes of testing (subsections 7-9):

    • If results are inconclusive or show the defendant as the source, the motion for a new trial is denied; the defendant’s DNA profile is entered into the statewide DNA database.
    • If results show the defendant is not the source, counsel is appointed for a hearing to determine whether the testing, along with new evidence, could reasonably change the outcome at retrial. Retesting may be ordered on prosecutor motion, with a stay of the new-trial motion pending retest results.

  • Appeals and victim notice (subsections 10-11): Decisions on the petition and new trial can be appealed by leave to the Court of Appeals. If the victim’s name is known, the prosecutor must notify the victim and/or provide hearing and outcome information upon request.

  • Preservation and ongoing petitions (subsection 12-13): Requires preservation of identified biological material for as long as the defendant remains incarcerated or litigating. Petitions tied to a specific case remain viable during incarceration, and may continue after release.

  • Definition of biological material (subsection 14): Broadly includes evidence with a reasonable likelihood of containing human DNA.

Who is affected

  • Defendants convicted of felonies in Michigan, especially those seeking postconviction DNA testing and potential new trials.
  • Prosecuting attorneys in the relevant counties.
  • Courts (circuit courts in the sentencing county) and defense counsel appointed under the bill.
  • Law enforcement agencies, hospitals, and medical examiners tasked with locating, preserving, and testing biological material.
  • Victims of the underlying felony offense, who may receive notice of petitions and hearings.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Petitions must be filed in the sentencing county’s circuit court; served on the prosecutor.
  • The court issues findings on the record; testing occurs in a court-approved lab.
  • Costs for testing may be borne by the state if the defendant is indigent.
  • Outcomes can lead to denial of a new trial, or a new-trial adjudication if non-source results and sufficient new-evidence support.
  • Appeals are via leave to the Court of Appeals.
  • Material must be preserved for an extended period, including after release if a petition is ongoing.

Overall, the bill broadens access to DNA testing and creates a structured path for obtaining new trials when newer DNA technology could affect guilt.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.