1. It shall be presumed that any employee or technician of the criminalistics laboratory is qualified or possesses the required expertise to accomplish any analysis, comparison, or identification done by the employee in the course of the employee’s employment in the criminalistics laboratory. Any report, or copy of a report, or the findings of the criminalistics laboratory shall be received in evidence, if determined to be relevant, in any court, preliminary hearing, grand jury proceeding, civil proceeding, administrative hearing, and forfeiture proceeding in the same manner and with the same force and effect as if the employee or technician of the criminalistics laboratory who accomplished the requested analysis, comparison, or identification had testified in person.
2. A party or the party’s attorney may request that an employee or technician testify in person at a criminal trial, administrative hearing, or forfeiture proceeding on behalf of the state or the adverse agency of the state, by notifying the proper county attorney, or in the case of an administrative proceeding the adverse agency, at least ten days before the date of the criminal trial, administrative hearing, or forfeiture proceeding. A party or the party’s attorney in any other civil proceeding may require an employee or technician to testify in person pursuant to a subpoena. [C71, 73, 75, 77, §749A.2; C79, 81, §691.2] 86 Acts, ch 1147, §1; 88 Acts, ch 1029, §1; 2019 Acts, ch 24, §104 \n
Notes of Decisions
State v. Casady, 597 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 1999).
· cites it 5× “Iowa Code section 691.2 provides that reports from the state criminalistics laboratory are admissible if they are determined to be relevant.”
State v. Lamp, 322 N.W.2d 48 (Iowa 1982).
“” § 691.2, The Code. It follows that a presumption of regularity attends such an analysis, comparison, or identification; therefore, it is presumed that an employee will perform a blood analysis competently and responsibly, in a manner that will not contaminate the sample or…”
State v. Sherry, 667 P.2d 367 (Kan. 1983).
“The statute, now Iowa Code § 691.2 (1983), is much broader than K.”
State v. Eldrenkamp, 541 N.W.2d 877 (Iowa 1995).
· cites it 2× “After the State had laid a proper foundation, the official report was admitted under Iowa Code section 691.2. Under this statutory provision any report or findings of the Crimi-nalistics Laboratory shall be received in evidence in any court in the same manner and with the same…”
State v. Vick, 205 N.W.2d 727 (Iowa 1973).
· cites it 2× “” Section 691.2. The question of burden of proof is not involved.”
State v. Smith, 272 N.W.2d 859 (Iowa 1978).
· cites it 2× “2, The Code (now § 691.2, Code Supp. 1977), for the laboratory technician who conducted the analysis to testify.”
State v. Brown, 168 N.W.2d 922 (Iowa 1969).
· cites it 2× “To prevent an illegal attempt by force to take or injure property in his lawful possession.” See also 6 C.J.S. Assault and Battery §§ 18-19, pages 809-816, and 6 Am.”
State of Iowa v. Jonathan Lee Shutt (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 8× “See Iowa Code § 691.2 (“A party or the party’s attorney may request that an employee or technician testify in person at a criminal trial .”
State of Iowa v. Richard Osmond McLachlan Jr. (Iowa Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 12× “Iowa Code § 691.2 (emphasis added). 20 that notice-and-demand statutes permit the defendant to assert (or forfeit by silence) his confrontation right after receiving notice of the prosecution’s intent to offer a forensic analyst’s report).”
State of Iowa v. James Russell Ellis (Iowa Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 7× “See Iowa Code § 691.2 (2). The next day, the State filed a motion requesting the court’s permission for its DCI witnesses to testify by deposition, citing their unavailability for trial because of a mandatory training.”
— Iowa Code § 691.2(1) — 1 case
State of Iowa v. James Russell Ellis (Iowa Ct. App. 2025).
“See Iowa Code § 691.2 (2). The next day, the State filed a motion requesting the court’s permission for its DCI witnesses to testify by deposition, citing their unavailability for trial because of a mandatory training.”
— Iowa Code § 691.2(2) — 1 case
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.