(1) When in any felony prosecution or any prosecution for a misdemeanor or a violation of a city or village ordinance for which imprisonment is a possible penalty, the evidence of the prosecuting authority consists of scientific tests or analyses of ballistics, firearms identification, fingerprints, blood, semen, or other stains, upon motion of the defendant the court where the case is to be tried may order the prosecuting attorney to make available to the defense such evidence necessary to allow the defense to conduct like tests or analyses with its own experts. The order shall specify the time, place, and manner of making such tests or analyses by the defense. Such an order shall not be entered if the tests or analyses by the defense cannot be made because of the natural deterioration of the evidence.
(2) If the evidence necessary to conduct the tests or analyses by the defense is unavailable because of the neglect or intentional alteration by representatives of the prosecuting authority, other than alterations necessary to conduct the initial tests, the tests or analyses by the prosecuting authority shall not be admitted into evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2023 · leading case:
State v. Henry, 875 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2016).
State v. Henry, 875 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 55× “In the absence of any discovery motion under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1913 (Reissue 2008), there is no discovery order, and without a discovery order, there can be no violation requiring suppression of the evidence.”
State v. Davlin, 639 N.W.2d 631 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 13× “2d 31 (1998), and did not instruct the jury that malice was an essential element of the crime of second degree murder; (2) instructed the jury that an essential element of the crime of second degree murder was that the killing was done “intentionally, but without malice,”…”
State v. El-Tabech, 610 N.W.2d 737 (Neb. 2000).
· cites it 8× “In the motion, El-Tabech alleged that prior to and during his trial, DNA fingerprinting *743 and analysis was not available as a method of identification but had become available in recent years.”
State v. Tanner, 448 N.W.2d 586 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 20× “After noting that the proper remedy under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-1913 (Reissue 1985) would be to exclude the evidence, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss.”
State v. Castor, 599 N.W.2d 201 (Neb. 1999).
· cites it 2× “The trial court determined that there was no issue ripe for determination because identification of the seized evidence could be accomplished by motion pursuant to § 29-1912 and because Castor was protected by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1913 (2) (Reissue 1995) from any destruction of…”
State v. Peterson, 494 N.W.2d 551 (Neb. 1993).
· cites it 9× “Defendant filed a motion for inspection, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1913 (Reissue 1989), and a more general discovery motion.”
State v. Brodrick, 205 N.W.2d 660 (Neb. 1973).
· cites it 2× “Section 29-1913 (2), R. S'. Supp., .1972, provides: “If the evidence necessary to conduct the tests or analyses by the defense is unavailable because of the neglect or intentional alteration by representatives of the state, other than alterations necessary to conduct the initial…”
State v. Sidney (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “(c) Failure to Obtain DNA Test of Rifle and Ammunition Sidney next assigns that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to file a motion under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1913 (Reissue 2016) to obtain an independent DNA test of the swabs taken from…”
State v. McKean (Neb. Ct. App. 2016).
“” See § 29-1912; § 29-1913. McKean has already been convicted of attempted possession of methamphetamine and is not facing any new charges, only a motion to revoke his probation.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1913(1) — 2 cases
State v. Henry, 875 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2016).
“In the absence of any discovery motion under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1913 (Reissue 2008), there is no discovery order, and without a discovery order, there can be no violation requiring suppression of the evidence.”
State v. Tanner, 448 N.W.2d 586 (Neb. 1989).
“After noting that the proper remedy under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-1913 (Reissue 1985) would be to exclude the evidence, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1913(2) — 4 cases
State v. Henry, 875 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2016).
“In the absence of any discovery motion under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1913 (Reissue 2008), there is no discovery order, and without a discovery order, there can be no violation requiring suppression of the evidence.”
State v. Davlin, 639 N.W.2d 631 (Neb. 2002).
“2d 31 (1998), and did not instruct the jury that malice was an essential element of the crime of second degree murder; (2) instructed the jury that an essential element of the crime of second degree murder was that the killing was done “intentionally, but without malice,”…”
State v. Tanner, 448 N.W.2d 586 (Neb. 1989).
“After noting that the proper remedy under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-1913 (Reissue 1985) would be to exclude the evidence, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss.”
State v. Peterson, 494 N.W.2d 551 (Neb. 1993).
“Defendant filed a motion for inspection, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1913 (Reissue 1989), and a more general discovery motion.”
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.