HB 5308 would revise Connecticut’s post-conviction DNA testing statute to expand and clarify when a person convicted of a crime may seek testing of biological evidence. The bill allows a petition to be filed during incarceration or after release while the person remains under probation, parole, or correctional supervision, and it applies to evidence held by the Division of Criminal Justice, law enforcement agencies, laboratories, or the Superior Court. The petitioner must swear that the request relates to the case that led to the conviction and that the evidence contains biological material.
The bill directs the court to order testing when specified conditions are met, including a reasonable probability that exculpatory DNA results would have prevented prosecution or conviction, that the evidence still exists and can be tested, that the evidence was not previously tested or that new testing could resolve an unresolved issue, and that the petition is filed to prove innocence rather than delay justice. It also preserves a discretionary standard for cases where testing could have altered the verdict or sentence, and it requires notice to the prosecutor and a hearing before the court acts.
Impact
HB 5308 would amend General Statutes section 54-102kk, effective October 1, 2026, by broadening access to post-conviction DNA testing and clarifying the standards courts must apply. It also addresses who pays for testing, allowing the court to assign costs to the state or petitioner in the interests of justice while prohibiting denial of testing solely because the petitioner cannot pay. The bill guarantees counsel, including appointed counsel for indigent petitioners, and makes a denial of testing a final appealable judgment. Its practical effect is to strengthen procedures for convicted persons seeking to use DNA evidence to challenge convictions or sentences.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been received favorably in committee, with unanimous support in the Judiciary Committee and strong support in the Appropriations Committee. The vote history suggests broad agreement on the value of allowing access to DNA testing in appropriate post-conviction cases, especially where innocence may be demonstrated. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or hearing debate to indicate broader public controversy.
Contention
The main policy tensions in the bill are between expanding access to potentially exculpatory DNA testing and preserving finality in criminal judgments. The statute’s requirements that the evidence still exist, that testing be materially relevant, and that the petition not be intended to delay justice reflect concerns from prosecutors and the courts about frivolous or dilatory petitions. Cost allocation is another possible point of contention, since the bill allows courts to place testing costs on the state or the petitioner, though it protects indigent petitioners from being denied testing for inability to pay. No specific opposing arguments were recorded in the provided materials.