HSB 581 (LSB 5230XD (3) 87)

SENATE/HOUSE FILE _____

BY  (PROPOSED STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BILL)

A BILL FOR

An Act relating to DNA testing of certain criminal offenders.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:

    Section 1.  Section 81.1, Code 2018, is amended by adding the following new subsections:
   NEW SUBSECTION.  1A.  “Combined DNA index system” means a national, searchable DNA database created and maintained by the federal bureau of investigation where DNA profiles are stored and searched at a local, state, or national level.
   NEW SUBSECTION.  8A.  “DNA testing” means a test to analyze physical and biological evidence from a DNA sample including analysis that might not result in the establishment of a complete DNA profile.
   NEW SUBSECTION.  8B.  “Keyboard search” means a search under which information obtained from a DNA sample is compared with information in the combined DNA index system without resulting in the information obtained from the DNA sample being included in the combined DNA index system.
    Sec. 2.  Section 81.10, subsection 1, Code 2018, is amended to read as follows:
   1.  A defendant who has been convicted of a felony or aggravated misdemeanor and who has not been required to submit a DNA sample for DNA profiling may make a motion to the court for an order to require that DNA analysis be performed on evidence collected in the case for which the person stands convicted.
    Sec. 3.  Section 81.10, subsection 2, paragraph l, Code 2018, is amended to read as follows:
   l.  Why the DNA evidence would have changed the outcome of the trial or invalidated a guilty plea if the requested DNA profiling testing had been conducted prior to the conviction.
    Sec. 4.  Section 81.10, subsections 3 and 4, Code 2018, are amended to read as follows:
   3.  A motion filed under this section shall be filed in the county where the defendant was convicted, and notice of the motion shall be served by certified mail upon the county attorney and, if known, upon the state, local agency, or laboratory holding evidence described in subsection 2, paragraph “k” “j”. The county attorney shall have sixty days to file an answer to the motion.
   4.  Any DNA profiling testing that results in a profile of the defendant, an unknown person, or other biological evidence testing conducted by the state or by the defendant shall be disclosed and the results of such profiling or testing described in the motion or answer.
    Sec. 5.  Section 81.10, subsection 7, paragraph a, Code 2018, is amended to read as follows:
   a.  The evidence subject to DNA testing is available and in a condition that will permit analysis. and any of the following apply:
   (1)  DNA testing has not been performed on the evidence.
   (2)  DNA testing has been previously performed on the evidence and the defendant is requesting DNA testing using a new method or technology that is substantially more probative than the DNA testing previously performed. 
    Sec. 6.  Section 81.10, subsection 7, paragraph e, Code 2018, is amended to read as follows:
   e.  DNA analysis of the evidence The DNA testing results would raise a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have been convicted if DNA profiling had been available at the time of the conviction and had been conducted prior to the conviction such results have been introduced at trial.
    Sec. 7.  Section 81.10, subsection 8, Code 2018, is amended to read as follows:
   8.  a.  Upon the court granting a motion filed pursuant to this section, DNA analysis of evidence shall be conducted within the guidelines generally accepted by the scientific community. The defendant shall provide DNA samples for testing if requested by the state.
   b.  In response to a motion filed pursuant to this section, and after proper notice to the parties including an entity required to perform the search, the court may order the entity that has access to the combined DNA index system to do any of the following:
   (1)  Compare a DNA profile obtained from a DNA sample gathered in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a defendant against DNA data banks contained within the combined DNA index system through the use of a keyboard search. 
   (2)  Utilize a search method similar to a keyboard search that does not involve uploading the DNA profile to the DNA data bank if the court determines all of the following apply:
   (a)  The DNA profile complies with federal bureau of investigation requirements or state requirements, whichever are applicable, as such requirements are applied to law enforcement agencies seeking such a comparison, and the data bank meets national DNA index system or state DNA index system criteria, whichever is applicable. 
   (b)  If a comparison of the DNA profile had been conducted and if the results had been admitted at trial resulting in a verdict of guilty, a reasonable probability exists that the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant, or in a case involving a plea of guilty, if the results had been available to the defendant prior to the guilty plea, a reasonable probability exists that a conviction would not have resulted. 
    Sec. 8.  Section 669.14, subsection 14, Code 2018, is amended to read as follows:
   14.  Any claim arising from or related to the collection of a DNA sample for DNA profiling pursuant to section 81.4 or a DNA profiling or testing procedure performed by the division of criminal investigation, department of public safety.
EXPLANATION
The inclusion of this explanation does not constitute agreement with
the explanation’s substance by the members of the general assembly.
   This bill relates to a defendant filing a motion for an order to require that DNA analysis be performed on evidence after conviction. 
   The bill replaces the term “DNA profiling” with “DNA testing” for purposes of Code section 81.10 (DNA profiling after conviction) and makes other changes to Code section 81.10. The bill defines “DNA testing” to mean a test to analyze physical and biological evidence from a DNA sample including analysis that might not result in the establishment of a complete DNA profile. Under current law, “DNA profiling” is defined to mean the procedure established by the division of criminal investigation, department of public safety, for determining a person’s genetic identity. 
   The bill also defines “combined DNA index system” to mean a national, searchable DNA database created and maintained by the federal bureau of investigation where DNA profiles are stored and searched at a local, state, or national level.
   The bill defines “keyboard search” to mean a search under which information obtained from a DNA sample is compared with information in the combined DNA index system without resulting in the information obtained from the DNA sample being included in the combined DNA index system. 
   The bill provides that a defendant who has been convicted of a felony or an aggravated misdemeanor may make a motion for an order to require that DNA analysis be performed on evidence collected in the case for which the defendant stands convicted. Current law requires such a defendant to have not previously submitted a DNA sample for DNA profiling prior to the filing of such a motion. 
   The bill requires the defendant’s motion for an order to require DNA analysis be performed on evidence collected in the case to include a statement detailing why the DNA evidence would have changed the outcome of the trial or invalidated a guilty plea if the requested DNA testing had been conducted prior to the conviction. Current law requires such motion to state why the DNA evidence would have changed the outcome of the trial or invalidated a guilty plea if DNA profiling had been conducted prior to conviction. 
   The bill specifies that the defendant’s motion shall be served upon the laboratory, if known by the defendant, holding the biological evidence. 
   The bill requires that any DNA testing that results in a DNA profile of the defendant or an unknown person, or other biological evidence conducted by the state or by the defendant shall be disclosed and the results of such testing be described in the motion or answer. Current law requires DNA profiling, not DNA testing results, be disclosed and does not require disclosure when the DNA profiling results in the DNA profile of an unknown person. 
   The bill specifies that the court shall grant the defendant’s motion for an order to require that DNA analysis be performed on evidence collected in the case for which the person stands convicted when either DNA testing has not been performed on the evidence or when DNA testing has been previously performed on the evidence and the defendant is requesting DNA testing using a new method or technology that is substantially more probative than prior DNA testing, and when the other conditions under Code section 81.10(7) have been met. 
   Additionally, the bill specifies that the defendant’s motion shall be granted when the DNA testing results would raise a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have been convicted if such results had been introduced at trial, and additional conditions under Code section 81.10(7) have been met. 
   Upon the court granting a defendant’s motion under the bill, DNA analysis of evidence shall be conducted within the guidelines generally accepted by the scientific community, and the court may order an entity that has access to the combined DNA index system to do the following: compare a DNA profile obtained from a DNA sample gathered in connection with the prosecution of the defendant against the DNA data banks contained within the combined DNA index system by using a keyboard search; or utilize a search method similar to a keyboard search that does not involve uploading the DNA profile to the DNA data bank. 
   The court may order another comparison search method other than a keyboard search of the DNA data bank if all of the following apply: the DNA profile complies with federal bureau of investigation requirements or state requirements, whichever are applicable, as such requirements are applied to law enforcement agencies seeking such a comparison, and the data bank meets national DNA index system criteria or state DNA index system criteria, whichever is applicable; and if a comparison of the DNA profile had been conducted and if the results had been admitted at trial resulting in a verdict of guilty, a reasonable probability exists that the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant, or in a case involving a plea of guilty, if the results had been available to the defendant prior to the guilty plea, a reasonable probability exists that a conviction would not have resulted. 
   The bill provides that Code chapter 669 (state tort claims) does not apply to any claim arising from or related to the collection of a DNA sample for DNA testing performed by the division of criminal investigation of the department of public safety. Under current law, Code chapter 669 does not apply to any claim arising from or related to the collection of a DNA sample for DNA profiling performed by the division of criminal investigation of the department of public safety.