Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 36-18-30 (2026)
Admissibility of Evidence Relating to Use of Genetic Markers.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Expert testimony or evidence relating to the use of genetic markers contained in or derived from DNA for identification purposes shall be admissible and accepted as evidence in all cases arising in all courts of this state, provided, however, the trial court shall be satisfied that the expert testimony or evidence meets the criteria for admissibility as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert, et. ux., et. al., v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., decided on June 28, 1993.
(Acts 1994, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 94-804, p. 109, §11.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases, 1998–2015 · leading case: Turner v. State, 746 So. 2d 355 (Ala. 1998).
Turner v. State, 746 So. 2d 355 (Ala. 1998). “This case concerns the admissibility of deoxyribonucleic acid ("DNA") evidence under Ala.Code 1975, § 36-18-30. The trial court held that DNA evidence was admissible to show that Andre Dwight Turner was connected to a murder scene.”
Simmons v. State, 797 So. 2d 1134 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). “Initially, we note that § 36-18-30, Ala. Code 1975not Perry provided the standard by which the courts of Alabama determined the admissibility of DNA evidence at the time of Simmons's trial.”
Adams v. State, 955 So. 2d 1037 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “The Court stated: "[I]f the admissibility of DNA evidence is contested, the trial court must hold a hearing, outside the presence of the jury, and, pursuant to § 36-18-30 [, Ala. Code 1975], determine whether the proponent of the evidence sufficiently establishes affirmative…”
Thomas v. State, 824 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). “The Alabama Legislature rejected the Perry test when it enacted § 36-18-30, which governs the admission of DNA evidence at Thomas's trial [17] and provides the following: "Expert testimony or evidence relating to the use of genetic markers contained in or derived from DNA for…”
Barber v. State, 952 So. 2d 393 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). “See § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp.”
Calhoun v. State, 932 So. 2d 923 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). “We note that the standard articulated in Perry was superseded by Alabama's adoption of § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975. We no longer use the reliability test articulated in Perry ; instead, § 36-18-30, Ala.”
Blackmon v. State, 7 So. 3d 397 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006). “The court stated: "[I]f the admissibility of DNA evidence is contested, the trial court must hold a hearing, outside the presence of the jury, and, pursuant to § 36-18-30[, Ala. Code 1975], determine whether the proponent of the evidence sufficiently establishes affirmative…”
Lewis v. State, 889 So. 2d 623 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “The standard for the admissibility of DNA evidence, both nuclear-DNA and mtDNA matching evidence and population-frequency-statistical evidence, is found in § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; that section provides: "Expert testimony or evidence relating to the use of genetic markers…”
Turner v. State, 924 So. 2d 737 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “The Alabama Supreme Court in Turner stated: "We hold that if the admissibility of DNA evidence is contested, the trial court must hold a hearing, outside the presence of the jury, and, pursuant to § 36-18-30 [Ala.Code 1975] determine whether the proponent of the evidence…”
Minor v. State, 914 So. 2d 372 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). “See § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp.”
Thompson v. State, 153 So. 3d 84 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012). “§ 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp.”
Maples v. State, 758 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “At the time of the appellant's trial, § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975, not Perry , governed the admissibility of DNA evidence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.