K.S.A. » Chapter 21
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 21-2512 (2026)

Forensic DNA testing; limits thereof

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

21-2512. Forensic DNA testing; limits thereof. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person in state custody, at any time after conviction for murder in the first degree as defined by K.S.A. 21-3401, prior to its repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5402, and amendments thereto, or for rape as defined by K.S.A. 21-3502, prior to its repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5503, and amendments thereto, may petition the court that entered the judgment for forensic DNA testing (deoxyribonucleic acid testing) of any biological material that:

(1) Is related to the investigation or prosecution that resulted in the conviction;

(2) is in the actual or constructive possession of the state; and

(3) was not previously subjected to DNA testing, or can be subjected to retesting with new DNA techniques that provide a reasonable likelihood of more accurate and probative results.

(b) (1) The court shall notify the prosecuting attorney of a petition made under subsection (a) and shall afford the prosecuting attorney an opportunity to respond.

(2) Upon receiving notice of a petition made under subsection (a), the prosecuting attorney shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that any remaining biological material that was secured in connection with the case is preserved pending the completion of proceedings under this section.

(c) The court shall order DNA testing pursuant to a petition made under subsection (a) upon a determination that testing may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence relevant to the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner was wrongfully convicted or sentenced.

(d) The cost of DNA testing ordered under subsection (c) shall be borne by the state or the petitioner, as the court may order in the interests of justice, if it is shown that the petitioner is not indigent and possesses the means to pay.

(e) The court may at any time appoint counsel for an indigent applicant under this section.

(f) (1) Except as provided in subsection (f)(3), if the results of DNA testing conducted under this section are unfavorable to the petitioner, the court:

(A) Shall dismiss the petition; and

(B) in the case of a petitioner who is not indigent, may assess the petitioner for the cost of such testing.

(2) If the results of DNA testing conducted under this section are favorable to the petitioner and are of such materiality that a reasonable probability exists that the new evidence would result in a different outcome at a trial or sentencing, the court shall:

(A) Order a hearing, notwithstanding any provision of law that would bar such a hearing; and

(B) enter any order that serves the interests of justice, including, but not limited to, an order:

(i) Vacating and setting aside the judgment;

(ii) discharging the petitioner if the petitioner is in custody;

(iii) resentencing the petitioner; or

(iv) granting a new trial.

(3) If the results of DNA testing conducted under this section are inconclusive, the court may order a hearing to determine whether there is a substantial question of innocence. If the petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a substantial question of innocence, the court shall proceed as provided in subsection (f)(2).

(g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the circumstances under which a person may obtain DNA testing or other postconviction relief under any other provision of law.

History: L. 2001, ch. 208, § 4; L. 2013, ch. 96, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 81 cases (32 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Haddock v. State, 146 P.3d 187 (Kan. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Haddock v. State, 146 P.3d 187 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 41× “60-1507 motion and reverse and remand for further proceedings pursuant to K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-2512. Evidence at Criminal Trial In 1993, Haddock was convicted of the first-degree murder of his wife who was found beaten to death and lying under a pile of wood in the garage of…”
State v. Cheeks, 310 P.3d 346 (Kan. 2013). · cites it 44× “The district court denied his request because the relevant statute, K.S.A. 21-2512, does not include individuals convicted of second-degree murder among those permitted to seek such testing.”
State v. LaPointe, 434 P.3d 850 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 16× “Years later, LaPointe requested DNA testing under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-2512, which authorizes postconviction analysis of biological material for first-degree murder and rape cases.”
State v. Angelo, 518 P.3d 27 (Kan. 2022). · cites it 65× “The statutory provisions governing the pretesting phase of the proceedings contemplate a three-part process leading up to the district court's decision whether testing shall be ordered.”
State v. Lackey, 286 P.3d 859 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 31× “: Robert Henry Lackey II appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his petition for DNA testing pursuant to K.S.A. 21-2512. Because we hold that Lackey s petition satisfied the criteria of K.”
State v. Hernandez, 366 P.3d 200 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 25× “Hernandez appeals the district courts denial of his K.S.A. 21-2512 petition for postconviction DNA testing.”
State v. Thurber, 492 P.3d 1185 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 25× “The plain language of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-2512 does not require that an individual convicted of a crime covered by the statute wait until the resolution of a direct appeal before seeking relief under the statute.”
State v. Kelsey, 356 P.3d 414 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 45× “Because K.S.A. 21-2512, a statute permitting postconviction DNA testing for some offenders, does not burden a fundamental right or involve a suspect class, we analyze any equal protection question concerning the statute by using a rational basis test.”
Haddock v. State, 286 P.3d 837 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 31× “: This appeal follows a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motions for new trial based on postconviction DNA testing that was allowed under K.S.A. 21-2512. The postconviction DNA testing produced some results that were favorable to the defendant, some results that…”
State v. Cheeks, 482 P.3d 1129 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 21× “The opinion of the court was delivered by WALL, J.: A jury convicted Jerome Cheeks for the second-degree murder of his wife in 1993.”
State v. Denney, 101 P.3d 1257 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 12× “Motion for DNA testing On September 12, 2002, Denney filed a pro se motion requesting that DNA testing be performed in 93 CR 1268 and 93 CR 1343 pursuant to K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 21-2512. The trial court denied the motion without appointing counsel and without oral argument, noting…”
Bruner v. State, 88 P.3d 214 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 12× “60-1507 motion centers on whether a court is required to order DNA testing if the criteria in K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 21-2512 are shown. John D.”
Show all 81 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(a) — 29 cases
State v. LaPointe, 434 P.3d 850 (Kan. 2019). “Years later, LaPointe requested DNA testing under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-2512, which authorizes postconviction analysis of biological material for first-degree murder and rape cases.”
State v. Angelo, 518 P.3d 27 (Kan. 2022). “The statutory provisions governing the pretesting phase of the proceedings contemplate a three-part process leading up to the district court's decision whether testing shall be ordered.”
State v. Hernandez, 366 P.3d 200 (Kan. 2016). “Hernandez appeals the district courts denial of his K.S.A. 21-2512 petition for postconviction DNA testing.”
State v. Lackey, 286 P.3d 859 (Kan. 2012). “: Robert Henry Lackey II appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his petition for DNA testing pursuant to K.S.A. 21-2512. Because we hold that Lackey s petition satisfied the criteria of K.”
State v. Thurber, 492 P.3d 1185 (Kan. 2021). “The plain language of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-2512 does not require that an individual convicted of a crime covered by the statute wait until the resolution of a direct appeal before seeking relief under the statute.”
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(a)(1) — 7 cases
State v. Angelo, 518 P.3d 27 (Kan. 2022). “The statutory provisions governing the pretesting phase of the proceedings contemplate a three-part process leading up to the district court's decision whether testing shall be ordered.”
State v. Williams, 471 P.3d 17 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Blake (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. George (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Denney (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(a)(2) — 5 cases
State v. Bailey, 510 P.3d 1160 (Kan. 2022).
Wimbley v. State, 257 P.3d 328 (Kan. 2011).
State v. Lackey, 286 P.3d 859 (Kan. 2012). “: Robert Henry Lackey II appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his petition for DNA testing pursuant to K.S.A. 21-2512. Because we hold that Lackey s petition satisfied the criteria of K.”
State v. Angelo, 518 P.3d 27 (Kan. 2022). “The statutory provisions governing the pretesting phase of the proceedings contemplate a three-part process leading up to the district court's decision whether testing shall be ordered.”
State v. Johnson (Kan. 2025).
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(a)(3) — 7 cases
State v. Lackey, 286 P.3d 859 (Kan. 2012). “: Robert Henry Lackey II appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his petition for DNA testing pursuant to K.S.A. 21-2512. Because we hold that Lackey s petition satisfied the criteria of K.”
Wimbley v. State, 257 P.3d 328 (Kan. 2011).
State v. George (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Ruff (Kan. 2026).
State v. Denney (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(a)(l) — 3 cases
Wimbley v. State, 257 P.3d 328 (Kan. 2011).
State v. Hernandez, 366 P.3d 200 (Kan. 2016). “Hernandez appeals the district courts denial of his K.S.A. 21-2512 petition for postconviction DNA testing.”
State v. Lackey, 286 P.3d 859 (Kan. 2012). “: Robert Henry Lackey II appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his petition for DNA testing pursuant to K.S.A. 21-2512. Because we hold that Lackey s petition satisfied the criteria of K.”
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(b) — 2 cases
State v. Angelo, 518 P.3d 27 (Kan. 2022). “The statutory provisions governing the pretesting phase of the proceedings contemplate a three-part process leading up to the district court's decision whether testing shall be ordered.”
State v. Harris, 550 P.3d 311 (Kan. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(b)(1) — 1 case
Haddock v. State, 146 P.3d 187 (Kan. 2006). “60-1507 motion and reverse and remand for further proceedings pursuant to K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-2512. Evidence at Criminal Trial In 1993, Haddock was convicted of the first-degree murder of his wife who was found beaten to death and lying under a pile of wood in the garage of…”
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(b)(2) — 2 cases
State v. Angelo, 518 P.3d 27 (Kan. 2022). “The statutory provisions governing the pretesting phase of the proceedings contemplate a three-part process leading up to the district court's decision whether testing shall be ordered.”
State v. Harris, 550 P.3d 311 (Kan. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(b)(l) — 3 cases
State v. Lackey, 286 P.3d 859 (Kan. 2012). “: Robert Henry Lackey II appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his petition for DNA testing pursuant to K.S.A. 21-2512. Because we hold that Lackey s petition satisfied the criteria of K.”
State v. Smith, 119 P.3d 679 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Lackey, 208 P.3d 793 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(c) — 21 cases
State v. Angelo, 518 P.3d 27 (Kan. 2022). “The statutory provisions governing the pretesting phase of the proceedings contemplate a three-part process leading up to the district court's decision whether testing shall be ordered.”
State v. George, 418 P.3d 1268 (Kan. 2018).
State v. Hernandez, 366 P.3d 200 (Kan. 2016). “Hernandez appeals the district courts denial of his K.S.A. 21-2512 petition for postconviction DNA testing.”
State v. Johnson, 327 P.3d 421 (Kan. 2014).
State v. Lackey, 286 P.3d 859 (Kan. 2012). “: Robert Henry Lackey II appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his petition for DNA testing pursuant to K.S.A. 21-2512. Because we hold that Lackey s petition satisfied the criteria of K.”
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(e) — 3 cases
State v. Thurber, 492 P.3d 1185 (Kan. 2021). “The plain language of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-2512 does not require that an individual convicted of a crime covered by the statute wait until the resolution of a direct appeal before seeking relief under the statute.”
State v. Hernandez, 366 P.3d 200 (Kan. 2016). “Hernandez appeals the district courts denial of his K.S.A. 21-2512 petition for postconviction DNA testing.”
State v. Lackey, 286 P.3d 859 (Kan. 2012). “: Robert Henry Lackey II appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his petition for DNA testing pursuant to K.S.A. 21-2512. Because we hold that Lackey s petition satisfied the criteria of K.”
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(f) — 13 cases
State v. LaPointe, 434 P.3d 850 (Kan. 2019). “Years later, LaPointe requested DNA testing under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-2512, which authorizes postconviction analysis of biological material for first-degree murder and rape cases.”
Haddock v. State, 286 P.3d 837 (Kan. 2012). “: This appeal follows a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motions for new trial based on postconviction DNA testing that was allowed under K.S.A. 21-2512. The postconviction DNA testing produced some results that were favorable to the defendant, some results that…”
Goldsmith v. State, 255 P.3d 14 (Kan. 2011).
State v. Rodriguez, 350 P.3d 1083 (Kan. 2015).
State v. Hernandez, 366 P.3d 200 (Kan. 2016). “Hernandez appeals the district courts denial of his K.S.A. 21-2512 petition for postconviction DNA testing.”
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(f)(1) — 3 cases
State v. Denney, 156 P.3d 1275 (Kan. 2007).
State v. Denney (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
Novotny (ID 93873) v. Peterson (D. Kan. 2025).
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(f)(1)(A) — 3 cases
Haddock v. State, 146 P.3d 187 (Kan. 2006). “60-1507 motion and reverse and remand for further proceedings pursuant to K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-2512. Evidence at Criminal Trial In 1993, Haddock was convicted of the first-degree murder of his wife who was found beaten to death and lying under a pile of wood in the garage of…”
State v. Lackey (Kan. 2017).
State v. LaPointe (Kan. 2017).
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(f)(2) — 11 cases
Haddock v. State, 146 P.3d 187 (Kan. 2006). “60-1507 motion and reverse and remand for further proceedings pursuant to K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-2512. Evidence at Criminal Trial In 1993, Haddock was convicted of the first-degree murder of his wife who was found beaten to death and lying under a pile of wood in the garage of…”
Haddock v. State, 286 P.3d 837 (Kan. 2012). “: This appeal follows a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motions for new trial based on postconviction DNA testing that was allowed under K.S.A. 21-2512. The postconviction DNA testing produced some results that were favorable to the defendant, some results that…”
State v. LaPointe, 434 P.3d 850 (Kan. 2019). “Years later, LaPointe requested DNA testing under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-2512, which authorizes postconviction analysis of biological material for first-degree murder and rape cases.”
State v. Rodriguez, 350 P.3d 1083 (Kan. 2015).
State v. LaPointe, 355 P.3d 694 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(f)(2)(A) — 3 cases
State v. Denney, 156 P.3d 1275 (Kan. 2007).
State v. Hernandez, 366 P.3d 200 (Kan. 2016). “Hernandez appeals the district courts denial of his K.S.A. 21-2512 petition for postconviction DNA testing.”
State v. LaPointe (Kan. 2017).
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(f)(2)(B)(i) — 2 cases
Haddock v. State, 146 P.3d 187 (Kan. 2006). “60-1507 motion and reverse and remand for further proceedings pursuant to K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-2512. Evidence at Criminal Trial In 1993, Haddock was convicted of the first-degree murder of his wife who was found beaten to death and lying under a pile of wood in the garage of…”
State v. LaPointe (Kan. 2017).
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(f)(2)(B)(iv) — 2 cases
State v. Rodriguez, 350 P.3d 1083 (Kan. 2015).
State v. LaPointe (Kan. 2019).
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(f)(3) — 10 cases
Haddock v. State, 146 P.3d 187 (Kan. 2006). “60-1507 motion and reverse and remand for further proceedings pursuant to K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-2512. Evidence at Criminal Trial In 1993, Haddock was convicted of the first-degree murder of his wife who was found beaten to death and lying under a pile of wood in the garage of…”
Haddock v. State, 286 P.3d 837 (Kan. 2012). “: This appeal follows a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motions for new trial based on postconviction DNA testing that was allowed under K.S.A. 21-2512. The postconviction DNA testing produced some results that were favorable to the defendant, some results that…”
State v. Denney, 156 P.3d 1275 (Kan. 2007).
State v. Hernandez, 366 P.3d 200 (Kan. 2016). “Hernandez appeals the district courts denial of his K.S.A. 21-2512 petition for postconviction DNA testing.”
State v. Rodriguez, 350 P.3d 1083 (Kan. 2015).
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(f)(l) — 4 cases
Haddock v. State, 286 P.3d 837 (Kan. 2012). “: This appeal follows a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motions for new trial based on postconviction DNA testing that was allowed under K.S.A. 21-2512. The postconviction DNA testing produced some results that were favorable to the defendant, some results that…”
State v. Denney, 156 P.3d 1275 (Kan. 2007).
State v. Rodriguez, 350 P.3d 1083 (Kan. 2015).
Goldsmith v. State, 255 P.3d 14 (Kan. 2011).
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(f)(l)(A) — 1 case
Goldsmith v. State, 255 P.3d 14 (Kan. 2011).
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(g) — 2 cases
State v. Cheeks, 310 P.3d 346 (Kan. 2013). “The district court denied his request because the relevant statute, K.S.A. 21-2512, does not include individuals convicted of second-degree murder among those permitted to seek such testing.”
Goldsmith v. State, 255 P.3d 14 (Kan. 2011).
— K.S.A. § 21-2512(j) — 1 case
Haddock v. State, 286 P.3d 837 (Kan. 2012). “: This appeal follows a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motions for new trial based on postconviction DNA testing that was allowed under K.S.A. 21-2512. The postconviction DNA testing produced some results that were favorable to the defendant, some results that…”
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.