Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 29
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4117 (2026)

Legislative intent

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is the intent of the Legislature that wrongfully convicted persons have an opportunity to establish their innocence through deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA, testing.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2021 · leading case: State v. Betancourt-Garcia, 910 N.W.2d 164 (Neb. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Betancourt-Garcia, 910 N.W.2d 164 (Neb. 2018). “See, § 29-4117; State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455 , 842 N.”
State v. Pratt, 733 N.W.2d 868 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 2× “See § 29-4117. Accordingly, Pratt's argument that the proceedings were criminal in nature is without merit.”
State v. Winslow, 740 N.W.2d 794 (Neb. 2007). “The Legislature expressed a broad intent that “wrongfully convicted persons have an opportunity to establish their innocence through [DNA] testing,” § 29-4117, and that the court shall order DNA testing upon a showing that the biological material may be “relevant to the claim…”
State v. Robbins, 900 N.W.2d 745 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 2× “22 The Act states that the Legislature finds that DNA testing is “the most reliable forensic technique for identifying persons when biological material is found at a crime scene or trans- ferred from the victim to the person responsible and trans- ported from the crime scene.”
State v. Dupigney, 988 A.2d 851 (Conn. 2010). “§ 46-21-110 (2007); Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4117 through 29-4125 (Sup.”
State v. Myers, 937 N.W.2d 181 (Neb. 2020). “MYERS time after conviction, file a motion, with or without supporting affidavits, in the court that entered the judgment requesting forensic DNA testing of any biological material that: (a) Is related to the investigation or prosecution that resulted in such judgment; (b) Is in…”
State v. Pratt, 842 N.W.2d 800 (Neb. 2014). “”13 “DNA testing,” the Legislature explained, “responds to serious concerns regarding wrongful convictions, espe- cially those arising out of mistaken eyewitness identifica- tion testimony.”
State v. Jacob, 960 N.W.2d 327 (Neb. 2021). “However, the State argued, and the district court agreed, the third requirement, that such DNA testing “may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence relevant to the claim that the person was wrongfully convicted or sentenced,” had not been met.”
State v. Young, 844 N.W.2d 304 (Neb. 2014). · cites it 3× “4 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4117 (Reissue 2008).”
State v. Betancourt-Garcia, 299 Neb. 775 (Neb. 2018). “To the contrary, the motion specifically stated that “police reports show this evidence still exist[s] in Madison County.”
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.