Utah Code
Utah Code § 78B-9-301 (2026)
Postconviction testing of DNA -- Petition -- Sufficient allegations -- Notification of victim -- Investigative genetic genealogy
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this part:
"DNA" means deoxyribonucleic acid.
"Factually innocent" means the same as that term is defined in Section 78B-9-401.5.
"Genetic genealogy database utilization" means the same as that term is defined in Section 53-10-403.7.
"Investigative genetic genealogy service" means the same as that term is defined in Section 53-10-403.7.
An individual convicted of a felony offense may at any time file a petition for postconviction DNA testing in the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction if the individual asserts factual innocence under oath and the petition alleges:
evidence has been obtained regarding the individual's case that is still in existence and is in a condition that allows DNA testing to be conducted;
the chain of custody is sufficient to establish that the evidence has not been altered in any material aspect;
the individual identifies the specific evidence to be tested and states a theory of defense, not inconsistent with theories previously asserted at trial, that the requested DNA testing would support;
the evidence was not previously subjected to DNA testing, or if the evidence was tested previously, the evidence was not subjected to the testing that is now requested, and the new testing may resolve an issue not resolved by the prior testing;
the proposed DNA testing is generally accepted as valid in the scientific field or is otherwise admissible under Utah law;
the evidence that is the subject of the request for testing:
has the potential to produce new, noncumulative evidence; and
there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have been convicted or would have received a lesser sentence if the evidence had been presented at the original trial; and
the individual is aware of the consequences of filing the petition, including:
that the individual is waiving any statute of limitations in all jurisdictions as to any felony offense the individual has committed which is identified through DNA database comparison.
The petition under Subsection (2) shall comply with Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65C, including providing the underlying criminal case number.
After a petition is filed under this section, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and crime laboratory personnel have a duty to cooperate in preserving evidence and in determining the sufficiency of the chain of custody of the evidence which may be subject to DNA testing.
An individual who files a petition under this section shall serve notice upon the office of the prosecutor who obtained the conviction, and upon the Utah attorney general.
The attorney general shall, within 30 days after receipt of service of a copy of the petition, or within any additional period of time the court allows, answer or otherwise respond to all proceedings initiated under this part.
After the attorney general responds under Subsection (5)(a), the petitioner has the right to reply to the response of the attorney general.
If the court grants the petition for testing, the DNA test shall be performed by the Utah State Crime Laboratory within the Criminal Investigations and Technical Services Division created in Section 53-10-103, unless the individual establishes that the state crime laboratory has a conflict of interest or does not have the capability to perform the necessary testing.
If the court orders that the testing be conducted by any laboratory other than the state crime laboratory, the court shall require that the testing be performed:
under reasonable conditions designed to protect the state's interests in the integrity of the evidence; and
according to accepted scientific standards and procedures.
DNA testing under this section shall be paid for from funds appropriated to the Department of Public Safety under Subsection 53-10-407(4)(d)(ii) from the DNA Specimen Restricted Account created in Section 53-10-407 if:
the court ordered the DNA testing under this section;
the Utah State Crime Laboratory within the Criminal Investigations and Technical Services Division has a conflict of interest or does not have the capability to perform the necessary testing; and
the petitioner who has filed for postconviction DNA testing under Section 78B-9-201 is serving a sentence of imprisonment and is indigent.
Under this Subsection (7), costs of DNA testing include costs that are necessary to transport the evidence, prepare samples for analysis, analyze the evidence, and prepare reports of findings.
If the individual is serving a sentence of imprisonment and is indigent, the state shall pay for the costs of the testing under this part, but if the result is not favorable to the individual, the court may order the individual to reimburse the state for the costs of the testing, in accordance with Subsections 78B-9-302(4) and 78B-9-304(1)(b).
Any victim of the crime regarding which the individual petitions for DNA testing, who has elected to receive notice under Section 77-38-3 shall be notified by the state's attorney of any hearing regarding the petition and testing, even though the hearing is a civil proceeding.
A court order requiring DNA testing under this section may include an order to perform an investigative genetic genealogy service or a genetic genealogy database utilization only if:
the individual requests an investigative genetic genealogy service or a genetic genealogy database utilization;
the individual demonstrates no other available DNA test can provide:
a conclusive result; or
any result due to the nature or quantity of the DNA evidence;
the individual demonstrates that an investigative genetic genealogy service or a genetic genealogy database utilization may reasonably be expected to provide meaningful information about the identity of the perpetrator;
the investigative genetic genealogy service or genetic genealogy database utilization will be performed in accordance with the requirements described in Subsection (6); and
if applicable, the individual or a third party agrees to pay for additional investigative expenses that may occur subsequent to the investigative genetic genealogy service or genetic genealogy database utilization.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 2009–2019 · leading case: Dist. Attorney's Off. for the Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009).
Dist. Attorney's Off. for the Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009). “, Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-301(4) (Lexis 2008).”
Gordon v. State, 2016 UT 11 (Utah 2016). “In challenging the district court's - decision, Gordon raises a series of threshold questions of law-as to whether a petitioner under Utah Code section 78B-9-301 has a right to file a reply to the State's opposition, who bears the burden of proof on alleged "tactical reasons"…”
People v. Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d 12 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “…is denied. Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur. . Alphonso Dixon died in 2003. . Ariz Rules Crim Pro rule 32.1 (h); Ark Code Arm §§ 16-112-201 — 16-112-208; Del Code Ann, tit 11, § 4504; DC Code § 22-4135; Me Rev Stat Ann, tit 15, § 2138 (10); Md…”
Meinhard v. State, 2016 UT 12 (Utah 2016). “" Utax § 78B-9-301(@)(f). Thus, in context "potential" is something different from an assessment of what likely "will" come to pass.”
Jackson v. State, 139 A.3d 976 (Md. 2016). “01 (West 2015); Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-301 (West 2016); Va.”
State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455 (Neb. 2014). “2009); Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-301(2)(a) and (b) (LexisNexis 2012); Va.”
Engesser v. Young, 2014 SD 81 (S.D. 2014). “§ 40-30-117; Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-301; Va.Code Ann. § 19.”
Johnson v. State, 2012 UT App 262 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “The district court granted the State's motion to dismiss, again ruling that Johnson failed to meet the requirements of section 78B-9-301. Johnson now appeals that ruling.”
McClellan v. State, 2012 UT App 316 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “The State conceded at oral argument that McClellan is not barred from amending his petition to provide the specificity required under the statute, which could include actual test results confirming the presence or absence of DNA on a cushion or clothing, see Utah Code Ann. §…”
Jamison v. State, 148 A.3d 1267 (Md. 2016). “); Utah Code Ann. §§ 78B-9-301, 78B-9-402 (2010); Vt.”
Sandoval v. State, 2019 UT 13 (Utah 2019). “Additionally, Sandoval argued that he is entitled to relief-independent of section 104-because the State violated his due process rights under the Utah Constitution when it disposed of the evidence and deprived him of the ability to seek post-conviction DNA testing, as provided…”
Gordon v. State, 2016 UT 11 (Utah 2016). “In challenging the district court‘s decision, Gordon raises a series of threshold questions of law—as to whether a petitioner under Utah Code section 78B-9-301 has a right to file a reply to the State‘s opposition, who bears the burden of proof on alleged ―tactical reasons‖ for…”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-301(2) — 5 cases
Gordon v. State, 2016 UT 11 (Utah 2016). “In challenging the district court's - decision, Gordon raises a series of threshold questions of law-as to whether a petitioner under Utah Code section 78B-9-301 has a right to file a reply to the State's opposition, who bears the burden of proof on alleged "tactical reasons"…”
McClellan v. State, 2012 UT App 316 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “The State conceded at oral argument that McClellan is not barred from amending his petition to provide the specificity required under the statute, which could include actual test results confirming the presence or absence of DNA on a cushion or clothing, see Utah Code Ann. §…”
Meinhard v. State, 2016 UT 12 (Utah 2016). “" Utax § 78B-9-301(@)(f). Thus, in context "potential" is something different from an assessment of what likely "will" come to pass.”
Sandoval v. State, 2019 UT 13 (Utah 2019). “Additionally, Sandoval argued that he is entitled to relief-independent of section 104-because the State violated his due process rights under the Utah Constitution when it disposed of the evidence and deprived him of the ability to seek post-conviction DNA testing, as provided…”
Gordon v. State, 2016 UT 11 (Utah 2016). “In challenging the district court‘s decision, Gordon raises a series of threshold questions of law—as to whether a petitioner under Utah Code section 78B-9-301 has a right to file a reply to the State‘s opposition, who bears the burden of proof on alleged ―tactical reasons‖ for…”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-301(2)(F) — 1 case
Meinhard v. State, 2016 UT 12 (Utah 2016). “" Utax § 78B-9-301(@)(f). Thus, in context "potential" is something different from an assessment of what likely "will" come to pass.”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-301(2)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455 (Neb. 2014). “2009); Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-301(2)(a) and (b) (LexisNexis 2012); Va.”
Sandoval v. State, 2019 UT 13 (Utah 2019). “Additionally, Sandoval argued that he is entitled to relief-independent of section 104-because the State violated his due process rights under the Utah Constitution when it disposed of the evidence and deprived him of the ability to seek post-conviction DNA testing, as provided…”
Gordon v. State, 2016 UT 11 (Utah 2016). “In challenging the district court‘s decision, Gordon raises a series of threshold questions of law—as to whether a petitioner under Utah Code section 78B-9-301 has a right to file a reply to the State‘s opposition, who bears the burden of proof on alleged ―tactical reasons‖ for…”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-301(2)(d) — 1 case
Meinhard v. State, 2016 UT 12 (Utah 2016). “" Utax § 78B-9-301(@)(f). Thus, in context "potential" is something different from an assessment of what likely "will" come to pass.”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-301(2)(f) — 2 cases
Meinhard v. State, 2016 UT 12 (Utah 2016). “" Utax § 78B-9-301(@)(f). Thus, in context "potential" is something different from an assessment of what likely "will" come to pass.”
Gordon v. State, 2016 UT 11 (Utah 2016). “In challenging the district court‘s decision, Gordon raises a series of threshold questions of law—as to whether a petitioner under Utah Code section 78B-9-301 has a right to file a reply to the State‘s opposition, who bears the burden of proof on alleged ―tactical reasons‖ for…”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-301(3) — 1 case
Gordon v. State, 2016 UT 11 (Utah 2016). “In challenging the district court‘s decision, Gordon raises a series of threshold questions of law—as to whether a petitioner under Utah Code section 78B-9-301 has a right to file a reply to the State‘s opposition, who bears the burden of proof on alleged ―tactical reasons‖ for…”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-301(4) — 3 cases
Dist. Attorney's Off. for the Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009). “, Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-301(4) (Lexis 2008).”
Johnson v. State, 2012 UT App 262 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “The district court granted the State's motion to dismiss, again ruling that Johnson failed to meet the requirements of section 78B-9-301. Johnson now appeals that ruling.”
Gordon v. State, 2016 UT 11 (Utah 2016). “In challenging the district court‘s decision, Gordon raises a series of threshold questions of law—as to whether a petitioner under Utah Code section 78B-9-301 has a right to file a reply to the State‘s opposition, who bears the burden of proof on alleged ―tactical reasons‖ for…”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-301(6)(a) — 1 case
Gordon v. State, 2016 UT 11 (Utah 2016). “In challenging the district court‘s decision, Gordon raises a series of threshold questions of law—as to whether a petitioner under Utah Code section 78B-9-301 has a right to file a reply to the State‘s opposition, who bears the burden of proof on alleged ―tactical reasons‖ for…”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-301(6)(b) — 1 case
Gordon v. State, 2016 UT 11 (Utah 2016). “In challenging the district court‘s decision, Gordon raises a series of threshold questions of law—as to whether a petitioner under Utah Code section 78B-9-301 has a right to file a reply to the State‘s opposition, who bears the burden of proof on alleged ―tactical reasons‖ for…”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-301(8) — 1 case
Gordon v. State, 2016 UT 11 (Utah 2016). “In challenging the district court's - decision, Gordon raises a series of threshold questions of law-as to whether a petitioner under Utah Code section 78B-9-301 has a right to file a reply to the State's opposition, who bears the burden of proof on alleged "tactical reasons"…”
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.