Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-304 (2026)
Court order if probable that exculpatory results would not have resulted in prosecution or conviction
✓ current as of May 2026
After notice to the prosecution and an opportunity to respond, the court shall order DNA analysis if it finds that:
- (1) A reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA analysis;
- (2) The evidence is still in existence and in such a condition that DNA analysis may be conducted;
- (3) The evidence was never previously subjected to DNA analysis or was not subjected to the analysis that is now requested which could resolve an issue not resolved by previous analysis; and
- (4) The application for analysis is made for the purpose of demonstrating innocence and not to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or administration of justice.
Acts 2001, ch. 444, § 1; T.C.A. § 40-30-404.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 104
cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011).
Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011). “27 While, as stated, all four criteria must be established before DNA testing is required under section 40-30-304, the most important one for purposes of this case is the first: whether “[a] reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not'have been prosecuted or…”
Griffin v. State, 182 S.W.3d 795 (Tenn. 2006). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-304 (2003). Additionally, DNA analysis is discretionary and may be ordered if the trial court finds that: (1) A reasonable probability exists that analysis of the evidence will produce DNA results which would have rendered the petitioner’s verdict or…”
Dist. Attorney's Off. for the Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009). “2008); Tenn. Code Ann. §40-30-304 (2006); Tex. Code Crim.”
Bondurant v. State, 208 S.W.3d 424 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-304. Second, DNA analysis is discretionary and may be ordered if the trial court finds the requirements of parts (2), (3) and (4) above are met, and that: “A reasonable probability exists that analysis of the evidence will produce DNA results which would…”
Karen S. McDowell v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 207 (Vet. App. 2009). “Laws 1166; TENNESSEE — Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-304 (2006); TEXAS — Tex.”
State of Tennessee v. Gerald Davis Thomas (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “In its written order, the court agreed “that the Defendant ha[d] not met his burden under the first of the four factors required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-304 .” In finding that factor (1) was not satisfied, the court felt no need to address the remaining three factors.”
Rudolph Powers v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “T.C.A. § 40-30-304. “The absence of any one of the four statutory conditions results in the dismissal of the petition.”
State of Tennessee v. Chris M. Jones (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “This court, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §40-30-304 (1), finds that a reasonable probability does not exist that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if other DNA would be found on these casings through DNA analysis, because several eye witnesses observed…”
Wesley Jones v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “§ 40-30-304. The court must find that all of these elements exist as a prerequisite to ordering testing.”
Jesse Haddox v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-304 (2003).3 The scope of our review is limited, as the post-conviction court is given considerable discretion in deciding whether the Petitioner is entitled to relief under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act.”
State of Tennessee v. William Thomas Reed (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020). “See T.C.A. § 40-30-304. In his motion for a new trial, the Defendant asserted that the trial court erred in not allowing him a hearing to challenge Dr.”
Phillip M. Mullins v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “The post-conviction court found that Petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-304, first finding Petitioner failed to prove that “new analysis would resolve the indeterminate samples” as required by section 40-30-304(3).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-304(1) — 27 cases
Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011). “27 While, as stated, all four criteria must be established before DNA testing is required under section 40-30-304, the most important one for purposes of this case is the first: whether “[a] reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not'have been prosecuted or…”
Rudolph Powers v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “T.C.A. § 40-30-304. “The absence of any one of the four statutory conditions results in the dismissal of the petition.”
State of Tennessee v. Gerald Davis Thomas (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “In its written order, the court agreed “that the Defendant ha[d] not met his burden under the first of the four factors required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-304 .” In finding that factor (1) was not satisfied, the court felt no need to address the remaining three factors.”
State of Tennessee v. Chris M. Jones (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “This court, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §40-30-304 (1), finds that a reasonable probability does not exist that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if other DNA would be found on these casings through DNA analysis, because several eye witnesses observed…”
Phillip M. Mullins v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “The post-conviction court found that Petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-304, first finding Petitioner failed to prove that “new analysis would resolve the indeterminate samples” as required by section 40-30-304(3).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-304(2) — 17 cases
Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011). “27 While, as stated, all four criteria must be established before DNA testing is required under section 40-30-304, the most important one for purposes of this case is the first: whether “[a] reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not'have been prosecuted or…”
Bondurant v. State, 208 S.W.3d 424 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-304. Second, DNA analysis is discretionary and may be ordered if the trial court finds the requirements of parts (2), (3) and (4) above are met, and that: “A reasonable probability exists that analysis of the evidence will produce DNA results which would…”
State of Tennessee v. Gerald Davis Thomas (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “In its written order, the court agreed “that the Defendant ha[d] not met his burden under the first of the four factors required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-304 .” In finding that factor (1) was not satisfied, the court felt no need to address the remaining three factors.”
Donnie E. Johnson v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
Willie Andrew Cole v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-304(3) — 8 cases
Griffin v. State, 182 S.W.3d 795 (Tenn. 2006). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-304 (2003). Additionally, DNA analysis is discretionary and may be ordered if the trial court finds that: (1) A reasonable probability exists that analysis of the evidence will produce DNA results which would have rendered the petitioner’s verdict or…”
Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011). “27 While, as stated, all four criteria must be established before DNA testing is required under section 40-30-304, the most important one for purposes of this case is the first: whether “[a] reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not'have been prosecuted or…”
State of Tennessee v. William Thomas Reed (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020). “See T.C.A. § 40-30-304. In his motion for a new trial, the Defendant asserted that the trial court erred in not allowing him a hearing to challenge Dr.”
Phyllis Ann McBride v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State of Tennessee v. Gerald Davis Thomas (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “In its written order, the court agreed “that the Defendant ha[d] not met his burden under the first of the four factors required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-304 .” In finding that factor (1) was not satisfied, the court felt no need to address the remaining three factors.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-304(4) — 7 cases
Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011). “27 While, as stated, all four criteria must be established before DNA testing is required under section 40-30-304, the most important one for purposes of this case is the first: whether “[a] reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not'have been prosecuted or…”
Griffin v. State, 182 S.W.3d 795 (Tenn. 2006). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-304 (2003). Additionally, DNA analysis is discretionary and may be ordered if the trial court finds that: (1) A reasonable probability exists that analysis of the evidence will produce DNA results which would have rendered the petitioner’s verdict or…”
Wesley Jones v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “§ 40-30-304. The court must find that all of these elements exist as a prerequisite to ordering testing.”
Marvin Readus v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
Thomas Edward Kottewa v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-304(a)(1) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. William Thomas Reed (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020). “See T.C.A. § 40-30-304. In his motion for a new trial, the Defendant asserted that the trial court erred in not allowing him a hearing to challenge Dr.”
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.