Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2026 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rioftagreen2 sentences2026“To determine the probability that a petitioner could demonstrate his innocence with the aid of favorable DNA test results, courts must consider the evidence produced at trial along with any newly discovered evidence and the impact that an exculpatory DNA test could have in light of this evidence.” Riofta, 166 Wn.2d at 369 . 2024See id. at 369 (“[C]ourts must consider . . . the impact that an exculpatory DNA test could have in light of [the remaining] evidence.”). | 5 | 13 |
State v. Crumptongreen2 sentences2026Ultimately, we “look to whether, considering all the evidence from trial and assuming an exculpatory DNA test result, it is likely the 7 No. 40781-1-III State v. Aguilar individual is innocent on a more probable than not basis.” State v. Crumpton, 181 Wn.2d 252, 260 , 332 P.3d 448 (2014). 2026“A court should look to whether, considering all the evidence from trial and assuming an exculpatory DNA test result, it is likely the individual is innocent on a more probable than not basis.” Id. | 2 | 11 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Riofta
green
2 sentences2019To do so, courts must consider “the evidence produced at trial along with any newly discovered evidence and the impact that an exculpatory DNA test could have in light of this evidence.” State v. Riofta, 166 Wn.2d 358, 369 , 209 P.3d 467 (2009). 2018Under RCW 10.73.170(3), the convicted person must "show[]the likelihood that the DNA evidence would demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not basis." "A court should look to whether, considering all the evidence from trial and assuming an exculpatory DNA test result, it is likely the individual is innocent on a more probable than not basis."9 Thus, the defendant must "show a reasonable probability of his innocence before requiring State resources to be expended on a test."19 In doing so, the court should be mindful that "there will always be strong evidence against a convicted individu | 4 | 2009–2026 |
Edwards v. Le Duc
green
1 sentence2021App. 455, 460 , 238 P.3d 1187 (2010). 13 No. 80614-9-I/14 appears none exist, since as addressed above, RCW 10.73.170 allows a court to order testing only when considering all the evidence from trial and assuming an exculpatory DNA test result, it is likely the individual is innocent on a more probable than not basis. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Gray
green
1 sentence2021For example, in State v. Gray, the court held that the defendant, who had been convicted of rape and attempted rape of two teenage girls, was entitled to postconviction DNA testing because it was undisputed that there was only one perpetrator. 151 Wn. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Melter v. Melter
green
2 sentences2018Under RCW 10.73.170(3), the convicted person must "show[]the likelihood that the DNA evidence would demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not basis." "A court should look to whether, considering all the evidence from trial and assuming an exculpatory DNA test result, it is likely the individual is innocent on a more probable than not basis."9 Thus, the defendant must "show a reasonable probability of his innocence before requiring State resources to be expended on a test."19 In doing so, the court should be mindful that "there will always be strong evidence against a convicted individu 2018App. 285, 301 , 273 P.3d 991 (2012). 5 No. 76073-4-1/6 Numerous cases, discussed by Senior and the State, are illustrative. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2014Id. at 369 . f 14 A few years later, this court heard State v. Thompson, which involved the brutal rape and assault of a woman in a hotel room. 173 Wn.2d 865, 867-68 , 271 P.3d 204 (2012). 2014Id. at 369 . f 14 A few years later, this court heard State v. Thompson, which involved the brutal rape and assault of a woman in a hotel room. 173 Wn.2d 865, 867-68 , 271 P.3d 204 (2012). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.