Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-404 (2026)

Court order if probable that exculpatory results would not have resulted in prosecution or conviction

✓ 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 shall order fingerprint analysis if the court finds that:

(1) A reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through fingerprint analysis;

(2) The evidence is still in existence and in such a condition that fingerprint analysis may be conducted;

(3) The evidence was never previously subjected to fingerprint analysis, was not subjected to the analysis that is being requested which could resolve an issue not resolved by previous analysis, or was previously subjected to analysis and the person making the motion under this part requests analysis that uses a new method or technology that is substantially more probative than the prior 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.

Added by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 355, s 2, eff. 7/1/2021.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Crawford v. State, 151 S.W.3d 179 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Crawford v. State, 151 S.W.3d 179 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-404 goes on to state: 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…”

Rhynuia L. Barnes v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). · cites it 12× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-404 (1). “The definition of ‘reasonable probability’ has been well-established in other contexts, and is traditionally articulated as a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome” of the prosecution.”

State of Tennessee v. Nakomis Jones (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). · cites it 9× “T.C.A. § 40-30-404. One of these requirements includes that: (3) The evidence was never previously subjected to fingerprint analysis, was not subjected to the analysis that is being requested which could resolve an issue not resolved by previous analysis, or was previously…”

Carl E. Saine v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). · cites it 12× “”3 Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-404 (1) and -405(1) (Supp.”

Rhynuia L. Barnes v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). · cites it 7× “T.C.A. § 40-30-404. 9 (1) A reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through fingerprint analysis; (2) The evidence is still in existence and in such a condition that fingerprint…”

Tony Von Carruthers v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). · cites it 7× “T.C.A. § 40-30-404. (1) A reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through fingerprint analysis; (2) The evidence is still in existence and in such a condition that fingerprint analysis…”

Kenneth Brown v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “-7- Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-404 . Additionally, the court may order fingerprint analysis if the court finds that: (1) A reasonable probability exists that analysis of the evidence will produce fingerprint results that would have rendered the petitioner’s verdict or sentence more…”

Oscar Smith v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “Compare T.C.A. § 40-30-404(1) (the court shall order analysis if “[a] reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through fingerprint analysis”) with T.”

Willie Tom Ensley v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-404 . Although our statute does not explicitly require that the petitioner show that identity was an issue, similar statutes in other states do.”

Clinton Wayne Lynch v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-404 . One of the conditions that the petitioner must establish is that the evidence is still in existence and in such a condition that DNA analysis may be conducted.”

Henry Rankins v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-404 (recodified at Tenn.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-404(1) — 7 cases

State of Tennessee v. Nakomis Jones (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “T.C.A. § 40-30-404. One of these requirements includes that: (3) The evidence was never previously subjected to fingerprint analysis, was not subjected to the analysis that is being requested which could resolve an issue not resolved by previous analysis, or was previously…”

Oscar Smith v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “Compare T.C.A. § 40-30-404(1) (the court shall order analysis if “[a] reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through fingerprint analysis”) with T.”

Rhynuia L. Barnes v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “T.C.A. § 40-30-404. 9 (1) A reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through fingerprint analysis; (2) The evidence is still in existence and in such a condition that fingerprint…”

Tony Von Carruthers v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “T.C.A. § 40-30-404. (1) A reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through fingerprint analysis; (2) The evidence is still in existence and in such a condition that fingerprint analysis…”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-404(2) — 4 cases

Clinton Wayne Lynch v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-404 . One of the conditions that the petitioner must establish is that the evidence is still in existence and in such a condition that DNA analysis may be conducted.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-404(3) — 2 cases

Henry Rankins v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-404 (recodified at Tenn.”

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.