Nevada 2017 Regular Session Status: Enacted Bipartisan · 5 D · 1 R cosponsors

AB 268 — Revises provisions relating to a postconviction petition for a genetic marker analysis. (BDR 14-638)

Last action — Approved by the Governor. Chapter 478.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  4. ✓
    Passed Senate
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced March 08, 2017. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 78% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 14 sponsors

    6 primary, 8 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Bipartisan support

    Sponsored across 2 parties (5 D · 1 R) — cross-party backing.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

106 added · 128 removed

Plain-language change summary

The recent amendments to Assembly Bill No. 268 streamline the process for individuals seeking a genetic marker analysis after being convicted of a felony. Originally, the law required the court to find a "reasonable possibility" that the analysis could have changed the outcome of the case. The amendment clarifies this process, stating the court must order the analysis if it finds the petition holds sufficient evidence, potentially making it easier for individuals to prove their innocence. This change is significant because it could lead to more exonerations for those wrongfully convicted, ensuring that justice is more effectively served.

→
Previous
Latest
(Reprinted with amendments adopted on May 26, 2017) SECOND REPRINT A.B.
Assembly Bill No.
268 A SSEMBLY BILL N O.
268–Assemblymen Watkins, Fumo, Ohrenschall, Jauregui, Bilbray-Axelrod;
268–A SSEMBLYMEN W ATKINS , F UMO , OHRENSCHALL , JAUREGUI , BILBRAY -A XELROD ;
Brooks, Edwards, Frierson, Kramer, Monroe-Moreno, Neal, Tolles and Yeager Joint Sponsor:
B ROOKS , EDWARDS , FRIERSON , KRAMER , M ONROE -M ORENO , EAL , TOLLES AND Y EAGER M ARCH 8, 2017 ____________ JOINT SPONSOR :
Senator Hardy CHAPTER..........
ENATOR H ARDY ____________ Referred to Committee on Judiciary SUMMARY—Revises provisions relating to a postconviction petition for a genetic marker analysis.
(BDR 14-638) FISCAL NOTE:
Effect on Local Government:
No.
Effect on the State:
No.
~ EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is new;
matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted.
petition requesting a genetic marker analysis of evidence within the possession or custody of the State which may contain genetic marker information relating to the investigation or prosecution that resulted in the judgment of conviction.
Existing law authorizes a person convicted of a felony to file a postconviction custody of the State which may contain genetic marker information relating to ther investigation or prosecution that resulted in the judgment of conviction.
(NRS 176.09183) Section 5.7 of this bill revises such THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
(NRS 176.09183) Section 5.7 of this bill revises such EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is new;
Section 1.
matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Sections 1-5.5.
2.
(Deleted by amendment.) Sec.
3.
(Deleted by amendment.) - *AB268_R2* – 2 – Sec.
4.
(Deleted by amendment.) Sec.
5.
(Deleted by amendment.) Sec.
5.5.
(Deleted by amendment.) Sec.
(1) A reasonable possibility exists that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through a genetic marker analysis of the evidence identified in the petition;
(1) A reasonable possibility exists that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had - 79th Session (2017) – 2 – been obtained through a genetic marker analysis of the evidence identified in the petition;
(2) The petitioner alleges and supports with facts that he or she asked his or her attorney to request to have a genetic marker analysis conducted, but the attorney refused or neglected to do so;
(2) The petitioner alleges and supports with facts that he or she asked his or her attorney to request to have a genetic marker oralysis conducted, but the attorney refused or neglected to do so;
or (3) The court previously ordered a genetic marker analysis to be conducted, but an analysis was never conducted.
(3) The court previously ordered a genetic marker analysis to be conducted, but an analysis was never conducted.
- *AB268_R2* – 3 – (b) Select a forensic laboratory to conduct or oversee the analysis.
(b) Select a forensic laboratory to conduct or oversee the analysis.
and (2) Satisfy the standards for quality assurance that are established for forensic laboratories by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
and established for forensic laboratories by the Federal Bureau ofe Investigation.
(e) Order the preservation of evidence used in a genetic marker analysis performed pursuant to this section and NRS 176.0918 and 176.09187 for purposes of a subsequent proceeding or analysis, if any.
- 79th Session (2017) – 3 – (e) Order the preservation of evidence used in a genetic marker analysis performed pursuant to this section and NRS 176.0918 and 176.09187 for purposes of a subsequent proceeding or analysis, if any.
If the court orders a genetic marker analysis pursuant to subsection 1 or 2, the State may appeal to the appellate court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the rules fixed by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 4 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution within 30 days after the notice of the entry of the order by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the district court.
If the court orders a genetic marker analysis pursuant to subsection 1 or 2, the State may appeal to the appellate court of Court pursuant to Section 4 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution within 30 days after the notice of the entry of the order by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the district court.
If the court enters an order dismissing a petition filed pursuant to NRS 176.0918, the person aggrieved by the order may appeal to the appellate court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the rules fixed by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 4 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution within 30 days after the notice - *AB268_R2* – 4 – of the entry of the order by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the district court.
If the court enters an order dismissing a petition filed pursuant to NRS 176.0918, the person aggrieved by the order may appeal to the appellate court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the rules fixed by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 4 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution within 30 days after the notice of the entry of the order by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the district court.
H - *AB268_R2*
~~~~~ 17 - 79th Session (2017)
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (4)

How this bill changes current law

2 changes Share ↗

Compared against the Nevada Revised Statutes as published AI-generated reading aid — verify against the official bill.

The bill revises the criteria for ordering a genetic marker analysis in postconviction petitions, expanding the grounds under which such analysis is required.

  • NRS 176.09183

    A reasonable possibility exists that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through a genetic marker analysis of the evidence identified in the petition; → One or more of the following situations applies: (1) A reasonable possibility exists that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through a genetic marker analysis of the evidence identified in the petition; (2) The petitioner alleges and supports with facts that he or she asked his or her attorney to request to have a genetic marker analysis conducted, but the attorney refused or neglected to do so; (3) The court previously ordered a genetic marker analysis to be conducted, but an analysis was never conducted.

    The criteria for ordering a genetic marker analysis now includes cases where the petitioner requested analysis but was refused by their attorney, or where a previous court order for an analysis was not fulfilled.

  • NRS 176.09183

    The evidence to be analyzed exists; → the evidence was not previously subjected to a genetic marker analysis, including, without limitation, because such an analysis was not available at the time of trial;

    The law clarifies that evidence must not only exist but also not have been previously analyzed, expanding the situations where a new analysis can be ordered.

Action History

  1. Approved by the Governor. Chapter 478.

  2. Enrolled and delivered to Governor.

  3. Senate Amendment No. 981 concurred in. To enrollment.

  4. In Assembly.

  5. From printer. To re-engrossment. Re-engrossed. Second reprint . To Assembly.

  6. To printer.

  7. Read third time. Passed, as amended. Title approved, as amended. (Yeas: 12, Nays: 8, Excused: 1.)

  8. Reprinting dispensed with.

  9. Read third time. Amended. (Amend. No. 981.)

  10. Taken from Secretary's desk. Placed on General File.

  11. Taken from General File. Placed on Secretary's desk.

  12. Read second time.

  13. Placed on Second Reading File.

  14. From committee: Do pass.

  15. Read first time. Referred to Committee on Judiciary. To committee.

  16. In Senate.

  17. Read third time. Passed, as amended. Title approved, as amended. (Yeas: 30, Nays: 12.) To Senate.

  18. From printer. To engrossment. Engrossed. First reprint .

  19. Read second time. Amended. (Amend. No. 434.) To printer.

  20. Placed on Second Reading File.

  21. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended.

  22. From printer. To committee.

  23. Read first time. Referred to Committee on Judiciary. To printer.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

6 sponsors · 8 co-sponsors · 53 not signed on

Sponsors (6)

Co-sponsors (8)

Not signed on (53)

53 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 53 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

Who sponsors AB 268?
AB 268 is sponsored by Neal, Dina (Democratic), Monroe-Moreno, Daniele (Democratic), Ohrenschall, James (Democratic), Jauregui, Sandra (Democratic), Yeager, Steve (Democratic), Hardy, Melissa R.. (Republican), Chris Brooks, Al Kramer, Jason Frierson, Justin Watkins, Shannon Bilbray-Axelrod, Chris Edwards, Jill Tolles, and Ozzie Fumo.
What is the current status of AB 268?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced March 08, 2017. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 268?
Track AB 268 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 268

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 268

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →