An Act To Amend Title 29 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Biological Evidence.
SB214 amends Delaware law governing the preservation and destruction of biological evidence in criminal cases. The bill broadens the definition of biological evidence to include any item containing or likely to contain biological material that could help incriminate or exculpate a person, and it requires the State to preserve such evidence for as long as the crime remains unsolved or, if there is a conviction, until the convicted person is no longer in custody, whichever is longer. It also requires preservation while any co-defendant convicted of the same crime remains in custody, and directs the State to retain evidence using best practices to prevent contamination or degradation.
The bill creates a limited process for destroying evidence before those retention periods expire. Destruction is allowed only after five years from final conviction and exhaustion of appeals, only for non-Class A through E felony matters, only if no other law requires retention, and only after certified notice is sent to specified parties and no timely request for retention or DNA testing is filed. For evidence that is too bulky or impracticable to keep intact, the State must preserve representative portions likely to contain biological material. If required evidence cannot be produced, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the loss was intentional, willful, negligent, or non-willful, and may order postconviction relief and other sanctions, including a presumption that DNA testing would have been exculpatory in appropriate cases.
SB214 would expand and clarify Delaware’s statutory duties for law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, forensic laboratories, and other state entities that collect, store, or retrieve biological evidence. It would lengthen preservation obligations, add notice and inventory requirements, establish procedures for limited destruction, and create explicit remedies for noncompliance, thereby affecting postconviction DNA testing, evidence management, and criminal case finality. The bill also directs the Delaware Police Accreditation Commission and Division of Forensic Science to develop and implement training and procedures within 120 days of enactment, and it delays implementation for two years after enactment.
Based on the bill text and synopsis, the measure appears to be framed as a criminal justice and evidence-integrity reform intended to improve access to DNA evidence and reduce the risk of wrongful convictions. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to assess beyond the sponsor’s stated intent. The overall tone of the legislation is protective of defendants’ postconviction rights while also giving the State a structured path for evidence retention and eventual destruction in limited circumstances.
The main points of contention suggested by the bill are the expanded retention obligations, the broader definition of biological evidence, and the sanctions for lost or destroyed evidence. State agencies responsible for evidence storage may view the bill as increasing administrative burden, storage costs, and compliance risk, while defense-oriented stakeholders are likely to support the stronger preservation rules and remedies. Another likely issue is the presumption that postconviction DNA testing would have been exculpatory when evidence is intentionally or negligently destroyed, which could be seen as a significant remedy in criminal cases. The delayed effective date and implementation study suggest the bill anticipates operational concerns and the need for standardized procedures.