Facts: Petitioner Alexander Riofta was convicted of first degree assault with a firearm in the Superior Court for Pierce County after a trial in which the victim identified Riofta as the man who had fired shots at him with a handgun. Riofta subsequently filed a motion with the trial court pursuant to Washington Revised Code §10.73.170(2)(a)(iii) requesting D.N.A. testing of the hat worn by the perpetrator of the shooting. The trial court rejected Riofta’s motion, ruling that §10.73.170(2)(a)(iii) requires that the requested tests yield significant new information and that any information derived from D.N.A. testing of the hat would not be new insofar as the hat had been available for testing prior to trial. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Riofta appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): May §10.73.170(2)(a)(iii) be invoked to obtain D.N.A. testing of evidence that could have been, but was not, tested prior to trial?

If so, did Riofta demonstrate, as required by §10.73.170(2)(a)(iii), a sufficient likelihood that the D.N.A. evidence could demonstrate the probability of his innocence?

Conclusion: Justice Madsen’s opinion for the Court reversed the Washington Court of Appeals insofar as it held that §10.73.170(2)(a)(iii) allows D.N.A. testing of any evidence that may provide significant new information regardless of whether the evidence could have been, but was not, tested prior to trial. However, the Court also concluded that Riofta had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood that the D.N.A. evidence could demonstrate the probability of his innocence as test results indicating that Riofta had not worn the hat and/or that someone other than Riofta had worn the hat would not necessarily demonstrate the probability of Riofta’s innocence insofar as there was reason to believe that Riofta had only worn the hat for a short period of time and was unlikely to have left D.N.A. evidence linking him to the hat and insofar as the hat belonged to another person and the presence of D.N.A. other than Riofta’s on the hat would therefore not necessarily exonerate Riofta. Thus, the Court affirmed the trial court’s rejection of Riofta’s motion.

Docket No. 79407-3

Petitioner: Alexander Nam Riofta

Respondent: State of Washington

Briefs:

Argument: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:45pm

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, June 11th, 2009

Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)

Vote: 6-3

Opinion: 166 Wn.2d 358 (2009)

Court: Alexander4 Court (2008-2009)

Alexander

Johnson

Madsen

Sanders

Bridge

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Opinion

Dissent

Dissent #2