Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that RCW 10.73.170 permits postconviction DNA testing when testing could provide significant new information, even if the evidence was available for testing at trial. The court further held that testing is required only when favorable results, considered alongside the trial and newly discovered evidence, would likely demonstrate innocence on a more-probable-than-not basis. The court affirmed the denial of Alexander Riofta's request to test a white hat because neither the absence of his DNA nor the presence of another person's DNA would likely establish his innocence in light of the evidence.
Holdings
- The phrase "significant new information" in RCW 10.73.170(2)(a)(iii) includes DNA test results that did not exist at the time of trial and are material to the perpetrator's identity, even when the physical evidence could have been tested at trial. Failure to request testing at trial is not a per se bar, although it may be considered in assessing the likelihood of innocence.
- A petitioner must show that favorable DNA results, considered together with the trial evidence and any newly discovered evidence, would raise a reasonable probability that the petitioner was not the perpetrator and would demonstrate innocence on a more-probable-than-not basis.
- Riofta failed to show that testing the white hat would likely demonstrate his innocence on a more-probable-than-not basis, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Questions Presented
- Whether RCW 10.73.170(2)(a)(iii) permits postconviction DNA testing when the physical evidence was available for testing at trial but was not tested.
- Whether Riofta satisfied RCW 10.73.170(3)'s substantive requirement by showing that favorable DNA results would likely demonstrate his innocence on a more-probable-than-not basis.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Riofta's request for DNA testing.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (18)
- Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wash. 2d 1, 9, 11, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)(followed)
- In re Welfare of A.T., 109 Wash. App. 709, 714, 34 P.3d 1246 (2001)(followed)
- United States v. Boose, 498 F. Supp. 2d 887, 889-90, 891-92 (W.D. Miss. 2007)(followed)
- United States v. Fasono, No. CRIM. 3:04-CR-34-WHB, 2008 WL 2954974, at *7 (S.D. Miss. July 29, 2008)(followed)
- State v. Hardesty, 129 Wash. 2d 303, 317, 915 P.2d 1080 (1996)(followed)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Bradford, 140 Wash. App. 124, 130-31, 165 P.3d 31 (2007)(distinguished)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 326 n. 42, 332, 115 S. Ct. 851, 130 L. Ed. 2d 808 (1995)(followed)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 399-400, 423, 113 S. Ct. 853, 122 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1993)(followed)
- State v. Wicker, 10 Wash. App. 905, 909, 520 P.2d 1404 (1974)(followed)
- State v. Peele, 67 Wash. 2d 724, 409 P.2d 663 (1966)(distinguished)
Showing top 10 of 18.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…