Alabama Senate Bill SB161

Alabama 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/14/26

Caption

Criminal procedure; post-conviction DNA testing procedures of inmates, further provided

Summary

SB161 expands Alabama’s post-conviction DNA testing law. Under current law, the procedure is focused on people convicted of capital offenses, and motions for testing are subject to existing timing limits. This bill would allow an inmate convicted of either a capital or noncapital offense to request DNA testing of specific evidence, so long as the evidence was tied to the investigation or prosecution, remains available, and the requested testing could show factual innocence. It also preserves the requirement that the court notify the state and allows the court to order testing only when statutory conditions are met. The bill also removes time limits that currently restrict when a person may seek post-conviction DNA testing. It provides that courts may not consider otherwise applicable limitations periods when evaluating these motions, and it supersedes conflicting provisions in Rule 32.2(c) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. If testing produces exculpatory results showing factual innocence, the petitioner may then file for post-conviction relief within 60 days under Rule 32. If results are inconclusive or unfavorable, the petition is dismissed.

Impact

SB161 would amend Section 15-18-200 of the Code of Alabama 1975 to broaden eligibility for post-conviction DNA testing from capital cases to noncapital cases and to eliminate existing filing deadlines for such motions. It would also clarify procedures for preservation of biological evidence, court review, appointment of counsel for indigent petitioners limited to DNA-testing issues, laboratory standards, and payment of testing costs through the petitioner, the State Fair Trial Tax Fund, or the Alabama DNA Database Fund depending on circumstances. The bill would affect incarcerated individuals seeking innocence-based relief, prosecutors and courts handling post-conviction motions, and forensic testing agencies.

Sentiment

The bill appears generally supportive of post-conviction innocence claims and access to DNA testing, with its text reflecting a remedial purpose aimed at correcting wrongful convictions. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials. The bill’s introduction and referral status suggest it was still early in the legislative process and had not yet generated a recorded vote history in the materials provided.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the expansion from capital to noncapital offenses and the removal of time limits, both of which broaden access to post-conviction relief and may raise concerns about finality of convictions and administrative burden on courts and prosecutors. Another likely issue is the standard for ordering testing, including whether the evidence could truly demonstrate factual innocence and whether the state should bear costs in indigent cases. The bill also supersedes part of the criminal procedure rules, which could draw attention from those concerned about consistency between statutes and court rules.