Legal Opinion

State v. Riofta

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 11, 2009No. 79407-3PublishedCited by 50 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMadsen, J.

¶1 — Alexander Riofta seeks DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing of a white hat that was worn by the perpetrator of a shooting for which he was convicted. Under RCW 10.73.170(2)(a)(iii), a convicted person may seek DNA testing on the ground it would provide “significant new information” that would demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not basis. The trial court denied Riofta’s motion on the merits. The Court of Appeals affirmed on an alternative ground that the white hat was available for testing at trial and therefore testing is not permitted under the statute because “significant new…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Schlup v. DeloSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  2. Herrera v. CollinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Sawyer v. WhitleySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  5. State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & GwinnWashington Supreme Court · 2002

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. In Re One 1970 Chevrolet ChevelleWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State v. ThompsonWashington Supreme Court · 2012
  3. State v. GentryWashington Supreme Court · 2015
  4. State v. GrayCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  5. State v. AllenCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011

45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API