1. The court shall grant an application for DNA profiling if all of the following apply:
a. The forensic sample subject to DNA profiling is available and either DNA profiling has
not been performed on the forensic sample or DNA profiling has been previously performed
on the forensic sample and the defendant is requesting DNA profiling using a new method or
technology that is substantially more probative than the DNA profiling previously performed.
b. A sufficient chain of custody has been established for the forensic sample.
c. The identity of the person who committed the crime for which the defendant was
convicted was a significant issue in the crime for which the defendant was convicted.
d. The forensic sample subject to DNA profiling is material to, and not merely cumulative
or impeaching of, evidence included in the trial record or admitted to at a guilty plea
proceeding.
e. The DNA profiling results would raise a reasonable probability that the defendant
would not have been convicted if such results had been introduced at trial.
2. Upon the court granting an application filed pursuant to this section, DNA profiling of a
forensic sample shall be conducted within the guidelines generally accepted by the scientific
community if the testing type or resulting profile is not eligible to be uploaded or searched
in the national DNA index system database. The defendant shall provide DNA samples for
testing if requested by the state.
2019 Acts, ch 149, §3
Referred to in §81.12
\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2021–2025 · leading case: Darryl Tyson v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2023).
Darryl Tyson v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 12דSee Iowa Code § 81.11 (1)(a). The State then filed a motion for summary disposition, claiming Tyson’s PCR application was outside the three-year statute of limitations.”
Donald Leroy Smith Jr. v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6דSee Iowa Code § 81.11 (1)(e). And if the answer is yes, then Smith should have been allowed to move forward with the testing.”
Robert Earl Carter v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4דSee Iowa Code § 81.11 (1)(a).3 Because Carter never supplied a new profiling method or alleged its superior probative value, his application for reprofiling and the corresponding request for an expert were properly denied.”
State of Iowa v. Chad Laverne Enderle (Iowa Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3דIowa Code section 81.11(1) provides: The court shall grant an application for DNA profiling if all of the following apply: a.”
State of Iowa v. Annette Dee Cahill (Iowa Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2ד” Iowa Code § 81.11 (1)(d), (e). In rejecting Cahill’s motion for new trial under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.”
Donald Antonio Vaughn v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2025). “§ 81.11(1)(e) (requiring applicants to show the “results would raise a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have been convicted if such results had been introduced at trial”).”
Joseph P. Sobolik v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2025). “§ 81.11(1)(c)–(e) (requiring the court to grant an application for DNA testing if “[t]he identity of the person who committed the crime for which the defendant was convicted was a significant issue in the crime for which the defendant was convicted”; the DNA evidence “is…”
— Iowa Code § 81.11(1) — 3 cases
Darryl Tyson v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2023). “See Iowa Code § 81.11 (1)(a). The State then filed a motion for summary disposition, claiming Tyson’s PCR application was outside the three-year statute of limitations.”
State of Iowa v. Chad Laverne Enderle (Iowa Ct. App. 2021). “Iowa Code section 81.11(1) provides: The court shall grant an application for DNA profiling if all of the following apply: a.”
Donald Leroy Smith Jr. v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2023). “See Iowa Code § 81.11 (1)(e). And if the answer is yes, then Smith should have been allowed to move forward with the testing.”
— Iowa Code § 81.11(1)(a) — 2 cases
Darryl Tyson v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2023). “See Iowa Code § 81.11 (1)(a). The State then filed a motion for summary disposition, claiming Tyson’s PCR application was outside the three-year statute of limitations.”
Robert Earl Carter v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2025). “See Iowa Code § 81.11 (1)(a).3 Because Carter never supplied a new profiling method or alleged its superior probative value, his application for reprofiling and the corresponding request for an expert were properly denied.”
— Iowa Code § 81.11(1)(c) — 1 case
Joseph P. Sobolik v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2025). “§ 81.11(1)(c)–(e) (requiring the court to grant an application for DNA testing if “[t]he identity of the person who committed the crime for which the defendant was convicted was a significant issue in the crime for which the defendant was convicted”; the DNA evidence “is…”
— Iowa Code § 81.11(1)(e) — 2 cases
State of Iowa v. Chad Laverne Enderle (Iowa Ct. App. 2021). “Iowa Code section 81.11(1) provides: The court shall grant an application for DNA profiling if all of the following apply: a.”
Donald Antonio Vaughn v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2025). “§ 81.11(1)(e) (requiring applicants to show the “results would raise a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have been convicted if such results had been introduced at trial”).”
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.