Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-305 (2026)

Court order if probable that results would have resulted in a more favorable verdict or sentence

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

After notice to the prosecution and an opportunity to respond, the court may order DNA analysis if it finds that:

(1) A reasonable probability exists that analysis of the evidence will produce DNA results that would have rendered the petitioner's verdict or sentence more favorable if the results had been available at the proceeding leading to the judgment of conviction;

(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. § 40-30-405.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 60 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011). · cites it 8× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-305 (emphasis added).”

Wiley v. State, 183 S.W.3d 317 (Tenn. 2006). · cites it 4× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-305 (1). In addition, we agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals’ conclusion that the DNA Relief Act does not mandate relief upon finding that a result is favorable to the petitioner.”

Griffin v. State, 182 S.W.3d 795 (Tenn. 2006). · cites it 4× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-305 (2003). Notwithstanding the trial court’s finding of waiver, the Act includes explicit language that makes DNA analysis available at any time.”

Bondurant v. State, 208 S.W.3d 424 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-305(1). Additionally, the DNA Act includes explicit language that allows DNA analysis at “any time,” thus superceding any general statute of limitations.”

Luis Castanon v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). · cites it 14× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-305 (italicized emphasis added).”

Christopher D. Hodge v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-305 (1). As this court stated in its direct appeal opinion of the Petitioner‟s conviction, “The undisputed medical evidence in this case attributed the death of the victim to strangulation by means of a ligature.”

Anthony Darrell Hines v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). · cites it 9× “§ 40-30-304 (2006), or that the Petitioner’s verdict or sentence would have been more favorable, T.C.A. § 40-30-305 (2006), if exculpatory results were obtained through DNA analysis.”

Thomas Edward Kottewa v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-305 (2003). “A reasonable probability of a different result exists when the evidence at issue, in this case potentially favorable DNA results, undermines confidence in the outcome of the prosecution.”

Eddie Lee Murphy, Sr. v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “See T.C.A. § 40-30-305. The Petitioner is not entitled to relief on this basis.”

Wesley Jones v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “-32- T.C.A. § 40-30-305 (2012); see Powers, 343 S.”

Willie Andrew Cole v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “T.C.A. § 40-30-305; see also Griffin, 182 S.”

Morris Rucker v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “Here, the post-conviction court reviewed the evidence and agreed with the State that the proof of the Petitioner’s guilt was “overwhelming.”

Show all 60 citing cases →

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-305(1) — 10 cases

Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-305 (emphasis added).”

Wiley v. State, 183 S.W.3d 317 (Tenn. 2006). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-305 (1). In addition, we agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals’ conclusion that the DNA Relief Act does not mandate relief upon finding that a result is favorable to the petitioner.”

Bondurant v. State, 208 S.W.3d 424 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-305(1). Additionally, the DNA Act includes explicit language that allows DNA analysis at “any time,” thus superceding any general statute of limitations.”

Eddie Lee Murphy, Sr. v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “See T.C.A. § 40-30-305. The Petitioner is not entitled to relief on this basis.”

Willie Andrew Cole v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “T.C.A. § 40-30-305; see also Griffin, 182 S.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-305(2) — 1 case

Donnie E. Johnson v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-305(3) — 2 cases

Griffin v. State, 182 S.W.3d 795 (Tenn. 2006). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-305 (2003). Notwithstanding the trial court’s finding of waiver, the Act includes explicit language that makes DNA analysis available at any time.”

Thomas Edward Kottewa v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-305 (2003). “A reasonable probability of a different result exists when the evidence at issue, in this case potentially favorable DNA results, undermines confidence in the outcome of the prosecution.”

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.