State v. Crumpton

¶1 — Lindsey L. Crumpton appeals the superior court’s denial of his motion for postconviction deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing under RCW 10.73.170. He argues that the superior court should have granted his motion because he showed a “high probability that DNA testing could identify the perpetrator of [the] rape.” Br. of Appellant at 1. Citing the statute’s plain language, the State responds *410that Crumpton failed to show “a likelihood that the new DNA test results would demonstrate his innocence on a more probable than not basis.” Br. of Resp’t at 8. Applying the statutory standard, we hold…