Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-302 (2026)
"DNA analysis" defined
✓ current as of May 2026
As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires, "DNA analysis" means the process through which deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in a human biological specimen is analyzed and compared with DNA from another biological specimen for identification purposes.
Acts 2001, ch. 444, § 1; T.C.A. § 40-30-402.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2021 · leading case: Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011).
Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011). “The pertinent provision for purposes of this appeal, however, is section 40-30-302, which defines “DNA analysis” as “the process through which deoxyribo-nucleic acid (DNA) in a human biological specimen is analyzed and compared with DNA from another biological specimen for…”
Hodges v. Bell, 548 F. Supp. 2d 485 (M.D. Tenn. 2008). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-302 et seq. (1997).”
James Perry Hyde v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “In order to determine if the DNA Analysis Act is applicable as provided in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40- 30-304 and 40-30-305, the type of testing requested must still fit the definition of “DNA analysis” contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-302. See…”
Phyllis Ann McBride v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “” T.C.A. § 40-30-302. The Petitioner’s argument ignores the statute’s directive that the court shall order DNA analysis only, not other forensic tests.”
Jesse Haddox v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-302 . In 1978, a Davidson County grand jury indicted the Petitioner, Jesse Haddox, for three counts: burglary in the first degree and petit larceny; concealing stolen property; and murder in the first degree.”
Kevin Burns v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-302 . The PCD must operate “consistent with professional standards and shall not compromise independent professional judgment, or create a professional or institutional conflict of interest, [or] appearance of impropriety .”
Est. of Sedley Alley v. State of Tennessee (2021). “See generally Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-302 . Other avenues exist for - 10 - consideration of newly discovered evidence in both the state and federal courts.”
Henry Eugene Hodges v. State (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-302 et seq. (1997).”
State of Tennessee v. Rockie Smith (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “§ 40-30-302(a). The sentence must be specific and consistent with the purposes and principles of the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-302(a) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Rockie Smith (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “§ 40-30-302(a). The sentence must be specific and consistent with the purposes and principles of the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989.”
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.