Sec. 8. After complying with section 7 of this chapter,
the court shall determine whether the petitioner has presented prima
facie proof of the following:
(1) That the evidence sought to be tested is material to identifying
the petitioner as:
(A) the perpetrator of; or
(B) an accomplice to;
the offense that resulted in the petitioner's conviction.
(2) That a sample of the evidence that the petitioner seeks to
subject to DNA testing and analysis is in the possession or control
of either:
(A) the state or a court; or
(B) another person, and, if this clause applies, that a sufficient
chain of custody for the evidence exists to suggest that the
evidence has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced,
contaminated, or degraded in any material aspect.
(3) The evidence sought to be tested:
(A) was not previously tested; or
(B) was tested, but the requested DNA testing and analysis will:
(i) provide results that are reasonably more discriminating
and probative of the identity of the perpetrator or accomplice;
or
(ii) have a reasonable probability of contradicting prior test
results.
(4) A reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not
have:
(A) been:
(i) prosecuted for; or
(ii) convicted of;
the offense; or
(B) received as severe a sentence for the offense;
if exculpatory results had been obtained through the requested
DNA testing and analysis.
As added by P.L.49-2001, SEC.2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 2003–2017 · leading case:
Matheney v. State, 834 N.E.2d 658 (Ind. 2005).
Matheney v. State, 834 N.E.2d 658 (Ind. 2005).
· cites it 4× “As such, he has not made the required showing, and we deny permission to litigate the claims in a state trial court. The Claims 1. Assistance of Counsel.”
Williams v. State, 791 N.E.2d 193 (Ind. 2003).
· cites it 4× “I.C. § 35-38-7-8. Indiana’s court system has provided defendants with access to numerous types of expert and scientific evidence, including DNA testing, long before the post-conviction DNA statute became law.”
Jackson v. State, 139 A.3d 976 (Md. 2016).
“5/116-5 (2016); Ind.Code § 35-38-7-8 (2016); Iowa Code § 802.”
Greenwell v. State, 884 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “Before approving the testing, however, Indiana Code section 35-38-7-8 (2002) directs the post-conviction court as follows: [T]he court shall determine whether the petitioner has presented prima facie proof of the following: (1) That the evidence sought to be tested is material…”
Lorenzo Reid & Larry Blake, a/k/a Larry Reid v. State of Indiana, 984 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “, however, would not provide Appellants the right to conduct the requested DNA testing because they have not presented prima facie proof of each of the statutory factors set forth in Indiana Code section 35-38-7-8. Indiana Code section 35-38-7-8 requires the petitioner to…”
State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455 (Neb. 2014).
“2014); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-7-8 (2)(B) (LexisNexis Cum.”
Mark Bonds v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “” Ind. Code § 35-38-7-8 (3)(B)(i), -(ii). He also failed to present evidence to show a reasonable probability that he would not have been convicted had the “exculpatory results had been obtained through the requested DNA testing and analysis.”
Jackson v. State (Md. 2016).
“5/116-5 (2016); Ind. Code § 35-38-7-8 (2016); Iowa Code § 802.”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-7-8(3) — 1 case
Williams v. State, 791 N.E.2d 193 (Ind. 2003).
“I.C. § 35-38-7-8. Indiana’s court system has provided defendants with access to numerous types of expert and scientific evidence, including DNA testing, long before the post-conviction DNA statute became law.”
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.