The original instrument and the following digest, which constitutes no part of the
legislative instrument, were prepared by Alden A. Clement Jr.
DIGEST
Dorsey-Colomb (SB 565)
Proposed law provides that before a defendant is tried for a capital offense in which the
prosecution is seeking the death penalty, the prosecution must have either the Dept. of Public
Safety and Corrections, office of state police, through one of its laboratories, or a laboratory that
is accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation
Board (ASCLD/LAB) in forensic DNA analysis, perform DNA testing, in accordance with the
laboratory's capabilities at the time the testing is performed, on any biological evidence that was
collected as part of an investigation of the offense and that is in the possession of the prosecution.
Proposed law further provides that the laboratory that performs the DNA testing is to pay for all
DNA testing performed in accordance with proposed law.
Proposed law provides that, as soon as practicable after the defendant is charged with a capital
offense, or on motion of the prosecution or the defendant, unless the prosecution has
affirmatively waived the death penalty in writing, the court is to order the prosecution and the
defendant to meet and confer about which biological materials collected as part of an
investigation of the offense qualify as biological evidence that is required to be tested under
proposed law.
Proposed law provides that if the prosecution and the defendant agree on which biological
materials constitute biological evidence, the biological evidence is to be tested in accordance
with proposed law. Proposed law further provides that if the prosecution and the defendant do
not agree on which biological materials qualify as biological evidence, the prosecution or the
defendant may request that the court hold a hearing to determine the issue. Proposed law further
provides that on receipt of a request for a hearing, the court is to set a date for the hearing and
provide written notice of the hearing date to the prosecution and the defendant. Proposed law
further provides that at the hearing, there is a rebuttable presumption that the biological material
that the defendant requests to be tested constitutes biological evidence that is required to be
tested under proposed law. Proposed law does not prevent the prosecution from testing
biological evidence in its possession.
Proposed law provides that if an item of biological evidence is destroyed or lost as a result of
DNA testing, then the laboratory that tested the evidence must provide to the defendant any work
product generated during DNA analysis by the laboratory that is related to the testing of the
evidence and the results of that testing.
Proposed law provides that the defendant's exclusive remedy for testing that was not performed
as required under proposed law is to seek a writ of mandamus from the court of appeal at any
time on or before the date an appeal is due to be filed in the defendant's case under present law.
Proposed law further provides that an application for a writ of mandamus under proposed law does not toll or interrupt any time limitation applicable to an appeal under present law or to a
habeas petition under federal law. Proposed law provides that the defendant is entitled to only
one application for a writ of mandamus under proposed law.
Proposed law provides that at any time after an appeal is filed in the defendant's case, the
defendant may file one additional motion for DNA testing under present law relative to DNA
testing as part of post-conviction relief.
Proposed law provides that a defendant, at his expense, may have another laboratory accredited
by the ASCLD/LAB in forensic DNA analysis perform additional testing of any biological
evidence required to be tested under proposed law. Proposed law further provides that on an ex
parte showing of good cause to the court, a defendant, at his expense, may have a laboratory
accredited by the ASCLD/LAB in forensic DNA analysis perform testing of any biological
material that is not required to be tested under proposed law.
Proposed law defines "biological evidence" as the contents of a sexual assault examination kit or
any item that contains blood, semen, hair, saliva, skin tissue, fingerprints, or other identifiable
human biological material that may reasonably be used to incriminate or exculpate any person in
the criminal investigation, whether that material is catalogued separately on a slide or swab, in a
test tube, or some other similar method, or is present on clothing, ligatures, bedding, other
household materials, drinking cups, cigarettes, or any other item of evidence, including those that
are alleged to have been touched or worn by the perpetrator of the offense. Proposed law further
provides that any work product generated during DNA analysis is not considered "biological
evidence", with the exception of the extracted DNA when the original biological evidence is
consumed during analysis, in which event the extracted DNA must be retained.
Effective August 1, 2014.
(Adds C.Cr.P. Art. 501)