Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-11 (2026)

Innocence protection — Mandatory preservation of biological evidence

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Mandatory preservation. During the term of the defendant’s incarceration resulting from his or her conviction after trial, the Rhode Island state police and each and every municipal police department in the state of Rhode Island, their agents, and any person to whom biological evidence has been transferred shall be obligated to preserve all biological evidence that comes into its possession during the course of a criminal investigation.

(b) Petition to destroy evidence. A police department or agent may be relieved of the obligation of mandatory preservation by applying to a justice of the superior court for permission to destroy biological evidence. Upon receipt of the petition, a justice of the superior court shall hold a hearing, and after giving notice to all defendants charged in connection with the prosecution, the justice shall grant the petition upon finding that:

(1) The Rhode Island Supreme Court has decided the defendant’s appeal; and

(2) The defendant does not seek further preservation of the biological evidence.

(c) Petition by defendant requesting testing. Notwithstanding any other provision of law governing postconviction relief, any person who was convicted of and sentenced for a crime may, at any time, file a petition with the superior court requesting the forensic DNA testing of any evidence that is in the possession or control of the prosecution, law enforcement, laboratory, or court. A person filing a petition under this section must certify under the pains and penalties of perjury that the requested testing is related to the investigation or prosecution that resulted in the judgment of conviction and that the evidence sought to be tested contains biological evidence.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 2004–2016 · leading case: Tempest v. State, 141 A.3d 677 (R.I. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tempest v. State, 141 A.3d 677 (R.I. 2016). · cites it 3× “1-12 7 and sought the release of certain physical evidence (including, among other items, hair recovered from both victims of the attack, as well as' fingernail clippings from Picard) for forensic testing.”

State Ex Rel. Richey v. Hill, 603 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 2004). · cites it 2× “Pocket Part) ("serving a term of imprisonment"); R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-11(c) (2003 Pocket Supp.”

Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011). “1 (West, Westlaw through Act 2011-3); R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 10-9.1-11(c) (West, Westlaw through ch.”

Barbour v. State, 903 So. 2d 858 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). “2004); R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-11 (Supp.2003); Tenn.”

Karen S. McDowell v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 207 (Vet. App. 2009). “§ 9543 (2006); RHODE ISLAND — R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-11 (Supp.2008); SOUTH CAROLINA— S.”

Juan Martinez v. State of Rhode Island, 128 A.3d 395 (R.I. 2015). · cites it 4× “Before this Court, applicant argues that the trial justice should not have granted the state’s motion to dismiss because of an apparent discrepancy between G.L.1956 § 10-9.1-11, Rhode Island’s Innocence Protection Act, and the doctrine of res judicata, codified in § 10-9.”

— R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-11(c) — 2 cases

State Ex Rel. Richey v. Hill, 603 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 2004). “Pocket Part) ("serving a term of imprisonment"); R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-9.1-11(c) (2003 Pocket Supp.”

Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011). “1 (West, Westlaw through Act 2011-3); R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 10-9.1-11(c) (West, Westlaw through ch.”

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.