WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 1035

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 Mary Cavanagh and 4 co-sponsors

The bill expands postconviction DNA testing eligibility and allows a potential new trial if newer DNA results cast doubt on the conviction.

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS, JUDICIARY, AND PUBLIC SAFETY
#criminalprocedure:dna
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 1035

Overview

Senate Bill 1035 (Michigan, 2025-2026) proposes to amend Section 16 of Chapter X of the Michigan Code of Criminal Procedure (MCL 770.16), regarding postconviction DNA testing. The bill broadens and clarifies when a defendant may petition for DNA testing of biological material identified during the investigation that led to a felony conviction, and for a potential new trial based on the test results. It applies to both pre-2001 and post-2001 felonies with specific criteria, procedures, and consequences outlined for testing, potential new trials, and related rights.

Main purpose and intent

  • To provide additional avenues for felony defendants to seek DNA testing of biological material connected to their conviction.
  • To enable a potential new trial if DNA testing yields conclusive or more probative results, thereby assisting in ensuring the accuracy of verdicts.
  • To specify procedural steps, standards of proof, funding, and notification requirements related to postconviction DNA testing.

Key provisions and changes

  • Eligibility and petition grounds

    • For defendants convicted of a felony at trial before January 8, 2001: a petition to order DNA testing and a potential new trial may be filed while the defendant is serving a prison sentence.
    • For defendants convicted of a felony at trial on or after January 8, 2001: eligibility requires meeting certain conditions:
    • Either DNA testing was previously performed, or results were inconclusive, or testing with current technology is likely to yield conclusive results.
    • The material may be eligible for testing if it meets criteria of being material to the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator or accomplice.
    • If testing was not done previously, or if newer technology could provide more accurate results, testing can be sought.
    • The court may also grant testing if it finds that granting the petition is in the interest of justice.

  • Location and filing

    • Petitions must be filed in the circuit court for the county where the defendant was sentenced and served on the sentencing judge.
    • The petition must be served on the prosecuting attorney of that county.

  • Material and evidence requirements

    • The petition must allege that biological material was collected and identified during the investigation.
    • If the defendant cannot locate the material after diligent search, they may request a hearing to determine availability. Courts may order searches by appropriate agencies if material is identified but not located.

  • Standards for court order of testing

    • The court must order DNA testing if the defendant provides prima facie evidence that the material is material to identity as perpetrator or accomplice.
    • Clear and convincing evidence must show:
    • The identified biological material is available for testing.
    • The material was not previously tested—or will be tested with newer technology not available at conviction.
    • The identity of the defendant as the perpetrator was an issue at trial.
    • The testing material is available, and testing with new technology is possible.

  • Testing process and costs

    • If granted, the identified material and a sample from the defendant must be tested at a court-approved lab.
    • If the defendant is indigent, the state pays for testing.
    • Results must be shared with the court, defendant, and prosecutor. The court may require disclosure of testing protocols and related records.

  • Outcomes and consequences of test results

    • If results are inconclusive or indicate the defendant is the source of the material:
    • The motion for a new trial is denied.
    • The defendant’s DNA profile is entered into the state's DNA Identification Profiling System.
    • If results show the defendant is not the source:
    • The court must appoint counsel and hold a hearing to assess whether a new trial should be granted, considering whether the defendant could be the perpetrator and whether the material could have been contaminated or degraded.

  • Appeals and notification

    • Aggrieved parties may appeal the court’s decision to grant or deny the petition for DNA testing and a potential new trial, via leave to appeal by the Court of Appeals.
    • If the victim’s name is known, the prosecutor must notify the victim in writing and provide hearing details if requested.

  • Preservation and timing

    • Law enforcement must preserve identified biological material for the period the defendant is incarcerated or while the claim is pending.
    • Petitions must be filed while the defendant is housed in a Michigan Department of Corrections facility; released defendants may continue ongoing petitions.
    • The definition of “biological material” includes evidence likely to contain human DNA.

Who is affected

  • Defendants convicted of felonies in Michigan, both pre- and post-2001, who seek postconviction DNA testing.
  • Prosecuting attorneys in the relevant counties.
  • Courts (circuit courts in the sentencing county) and judges overseeing postconviction petitions.
  • Law enforcement agencies, hospitals, medical examiners (involved in searching for or handling biological material).
  • The Michigan State Police DNA Identification Profiling System (as it would receive new profiles if testing excludes the defendant).
  • Victims, where known, who must be notified of petitions and hearings.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Filing must occur in the circuit court of the sentencing county; assigned to the sentencing judge.
  • The process includes service on the prosecutor, potential hearings to locate biological material, and a formal order for testing if prima facie and clear-and-convincing evidence standards are met.
  • If testing is inconclusive or confirms the defendant as the source, the motion for a new trial is denied, but the defendant’s DNA profile is added to the state database.
  • If testing excludes the defendant, a new trial may be pursued after appointing counsel and conducting a separate evidentiary hearing.
  • Appeals may be pursued with leave from the Court of Appeals.
  • Preservation obligations apply for the period the defendant is incarcerated or pursuing the petition.
  • Notifications to victims are mandated when the victim’s name is known.

Effective scope and considerations

  • The bill clarifies and expands eligibility for postconviction DNA testing and potential new trials, with heightened emphasis on modern DNA technology’s capabilities.
  • It seeks to balance defendant rights, public safety, and victim notification while providing procedural safeguards, funding provisions for indigent defendants, and explicit preservation duties for biological evidence.

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

Sign in to ask a question.