In Lee v. State, 503 P.3d 811 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that neither an Alaska statute requiring the conservation of biological material in homicide and sexual assault cases for later DNA testing nor due process are violated when non-DNA biological evidence is destroyed, but that the State should provide notice to the defendant before consuming the evidence or it risks a due process violation. (Id. at 816, 817–18, 821). Lee was convicted of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor for forcibly performing fellatio on him. (Id. at 812). The state crime lab took six penile swabs from the victim, and placed all the biological material into two vials, one of which was preserved for independent testing. (Id. at 813). Lee’s defense was that the minor had raped her, and he had made up his story to cover it up, so the Defense asked an independent lab to analyze the swabs for an enzyme found in saliva. (Id. at 813–14). However, the lab was unable to do so as the biological material containing bodily fluids had been consumed during DNA testing. (Id. at 813). On appeal, Lee argued that the crime lab’s actions in combining the swabs and consuming the biological material violated an Alaska statute requiring the State to preserve biological material for DNA testing and violated her due process rights. (Id. at 815). The court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that Alaska Statute § 13.36.200 only required that biological material be preserved so that a DNA profile can be developed, and does not require the State to preserve non-DNA biological evidence. (Id. at 817–18). The court further reasoned that federal due process was not violated, as there was no showing of bad faith, and state due process was not violated, as the State acted reasonably in combining the swabs and the evidentiary value of the consumed material was questionable. (Id. at 818–19). However, the court did note that the State should provide notice to defendants before consuming biological materials, as it could be a due process violation if the destruction impeded the defendant’s ability to present a defense. (Id. at 821). In affirming the lower court, the court of appeals held that the consumption of non-DNA biological evidence did not automatically violate an Alaska statute requiring conservation of biological materials for DNA testing or due process, but that the State should provide notice to the defendant before doing so. (Id. at 817–18, 821).