Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.73
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.170 (2026)

DNA testing requests

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A person convicted of a felony in a Washington state court who currently is serving a term of imprisonment may submit to the court that entered the judgment of conviction a verified written motion requesting DNA testing, with a copy of the motion provided to the state office of public defense.
(2) The motion shall:
(a) State that:
(i) The court ruled that DNA testing did not meet acceptable scientific standards; or
(ii) DNA testing technology was not sufficiently developed to test the DNA evidence in the case; or
(iii) The DNA testing now requested would be significantly more accurate than prior DNA testing or would provide significant new information;
(b) Explain why DNA evidence is material to the identity of the perpetrator of, or accomplice to, the crime, or to sentence enhancement; and
(c) Comply with all other procedural requirements established by court rule.
(3) The court shall grant a motion requesting DNA testing under this section if such motion is in the form required by subsection (2) of this section, and the convicted person has shown the likelihood that the DNA evidence would demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not basis.
(4) Upon written request to the court that entered a judgment of conviction, a convicted person who demonstrates that he or she is indigent under RCW 10.101.010 may request appointment of counsel solely to prepare and present a motion under this section, and the court, in its discretion, may grant the request. Such motion for appointment of counsel shall comply with all procedural requirements established by court rule.
(5) DNA testing ordered under this section shall be performed by the Washington state patrol crime laboratory. Contact with victims shall be handled through victim/witness divisions.
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon motion of defense counsel or the court's own motion, a sentencing court in a felony case may order the preservation of any biological material that has been secured in connection with a criminal case, or evidence samples sufficient for testing, in accordance with any court rule adopted for the preservation of evidence. The court must specify the samples to be maintained and the length of time the samples must be preserved.
[ 2005 c 5 s 1; 2003 c 100 s 1; 2001 c 301 s 1; 2000 c 92 s 1.]

Notes:

Effective date—2005 c 5: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [March 9, 2005]." [ 2005 c 5 s 2.]
Construction—2001 c 301: "Nothing in this act may be construed to create a new or additional cause of action in any court. Nothing in this act shall be construed to limit any rights offenders might otherwise have to court access under any other statutory or constitutional provision." [ 2001 c 301 s 2.]
Report on DNA testing—2000 c 92: "By December 1, 2001, the office of public defense shall prepare a report detailing the following: (1) The number of postconviction DNA test requests approved by the respective prosecutor; (2) the number of postconviction DNA test requests denied by the respective prosecutor and a summary of the basis for the denials; (3) the number of appeals for postconviction DNA testing approved by the attorney general's office; (4) the number of appeals for postconviction DNA testing denied by the attorney general's office and a summary of the basis for the denials; and (5) a summary of the results of the postconviction DNA tests conducted pursuant to RCW 10.73.170 (2) and (3). The report shall also provide an estimate of the number of persons convicted of crimes where DNA evidence was not admitted because the court ruled DNA testing did not meet acceptable scientific standards or where DNA testing technology was not sufficiently developed to test the DNA evidence in the case." [ 2000 c 92 s 2.]
Intent—2000 c 92: "Nothing in chapter 92, Laws of 2000 is intended to create a legal right or cause of action. Nothing in chapter 92, Laws of 2000 is intended to deny or alter any existing legal right or cause of action. Nothing in chapter 92, Laws of 2000 should be interpreted to deny postconviction DNA testing requests under existing law by convicted and incarcerated persons who were sentenced to confinement for a term less than life or the death penalty." [ 2000 c 92 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 71 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: State v. Thompson, 271 P.3d 204 (Wash. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Thompson, 271 P.3d 204 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 58× “*207 Subsection (3) of RCW 10.73.170 provides that the motion shall be granted if "the convicted person has shown the likelihood that the DNA evidence would demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not basis.”
Riofta v. State, 142 P.3d 193 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 46× “[1] Following conviction, Riofta filed unsuccessful requests with the Pierce County prosecutor and the attorney general under former RCW 10.73.170 (2001) for post-conviction DNA testing of a white hat worn by the shooter.”
State v. Riofta, 209 P.3d 467 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 26× “The State’s theory was that Riofta shot at Sok to frighten his brother and deter him from cooperating with the prosecution of the Trang Dai defendants. ¶10 A jury convicted Riofta of first degree assault with a firearm.”
State v. Riofta, 134 Wash. App. 669 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 41× “1 Following conviction, Riofta filed unsuccessful requests with the Pierce County prosecutor and the attorney general under former RCW 10.73.170 (2001) for post-conviction DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing of a white hat worn by the shooter.”
State v. Slattum, 295 P.3d 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 32× “¶1 RCW 10.73.170 provides for state-funded postconviction DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing to certain felons currently serving a “term of imprisonment.”
State v. Gentry, 356 P.3d 714 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 16× “¶3 Judge Forbes granted the State’s motion to deny further DNA testing, ruling that Gentry could not meet the substantive standard of RCW 10.73.170, which requires a convicted person to show the likelihood that DNA evidence would demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not…”
State v. Crumpton, 332 P.3d 448 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 18× “In 2011, he petitioned the court for postconviction deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing pursuant to RCW 10.73.170. The superior court denied this motion, saying he had not shown a “ likelihood that the DNA evidence would demonstrate his innocence on a more probable than not…”
State v. Gray, 215 P.3d 961 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 20× “Gray appeals the trial court’s denial of his 2008 request, pursuant to RCW 10.73.170, for postconviction DNA testing on the physical evidence used at trial.”
State v. Crumpton, 289 P.3d 766 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 33× “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…”
State Of Washington v. Kevin Jory Braa, 410 P.3d 1176 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 14× “"RCW 10.73.170 provides a mechanism under Washington law for individuals to seek DNA testing in order to establish their innocence.”
State v. Gray, 215 P.3d 961 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 18× “Gray appeals the trial court's denial of his 2007 request, pursuant to RCW 10.73.170, for postconviction DNA testing on the physical evidence used at trial.”
Dist. Attorney's Off. for the Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009). · cites it 2× “1 (Lexis 2008); Wash. Rev. Code §10.73.170 (2008); W. Va.”
Show all 71 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.170(1) — 19 cases
State v. Thompson, 271 P.3d 204 (Wash. 2012). “*207 Subsection (3) of RCW 10.73.170 provides that the motion shall be granted if "the convicted person has shown the likelihood that the DNA evidence would demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not basis.”
State v. Slattum, 295 P.3d 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “¶1 RCW 10.73.170 provides for state-funded postconviction DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing to certain felons currently serving a “term of imprisonment.”
State Ex Rel. Richey v. Hill, 603 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 2004).
State v. Riofta, 209 P.3d 467 (Wash. 2009). “The State’s theory was that Riofta shot at Sok to frighten his brother and deter him from cooperating with the prosecution of the Trang Dai defendants. ¶10 A jury convicted Riofta of first degree assault with a firearm.”
Riofta v. State, 142 P.3d 193 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “[1] Following conviction, Riofta filed unsuccessful requests with the Pierce County prosecutor and the attorney general under former RCW 10.73.170 (2001) for post-conviction DNA testing of a white hat worn by the shooter.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.170(2) — 27 cases
Riofta v. State, 142 P.3d 193 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “[1] Following conviction, Riofta filed unsuccessful requests with the Pierce County prosecutor and the attorney general under former RCW 10.73.170 (2001) for post-conviction DNA testing of a white hat worn by the shooter.”
State v. Riofta, 209 P.3d 467 (Wash. 2009). “The State’s theory was that Riofta shot at Sok to frighten his brother and deter him from cooperating with the prosecution of the Trang Dai defendants. ¶10 A jury convicted Riofta of first degree assault with a firearm.”
State v. Riofta, 134 Wash. App. 669 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “1 Following conviction, Riofta filed unsuccessful requests with the Pierce County prosecutor and the attorney general under former RCW 10.73.170 (2001) for post-conviction DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing of a white hat worn by the shooter.”
State v. Thompson, 271 P.3d 204 (Wash. 2012). “*207 Subsection (3) of RCW 10.73.170 provides that the motion shall be granted if "the convicted person has shown the likelihood that the DNA evidence would demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not basis.”
State Of Washington v. Kevin Jory Braa, 410 P.3d 1176 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “"RCW 10.73.170 provides a mechanism under Washington law for individuals to seek DNA testing in order to establish their innocence.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.170(2)(a) — 15 cases
State v. Thompson, 271 P.3d 204 (Wash. 2012). “*207 Subsection (3) of RCW 10.73.170 provides that the motion shall be granted if "the convicted person has shown the likelihood that the DNA evidence would demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not basis.”
Riofta v. State, 142 P.3d 193 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “[1] Following conviction, Riofta filed unsuccessful requests with the Pierce County prosecutor and the attorney general under former RCW 10.73.170 (2001) for post-conviction DNA testing of a white hat worn by the shooter.”
State v. Riofta, 134 Wash. App. 669 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “1 Following conviction, Riofta filed unsuccessful requests with the Pierce County prosecutor and the attorney general under former RCW 10.73.170 (2001) for post-conviction DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing of a white hat worn by the shooter.”
State v. Gray, 215 P.3d 961 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Gray appeals the trial court’s denial of his 2008 request, pursuant to RCW 10.73.170, for postconviction DNA testing on the physical evidence used at trial.”
State v. Riofta, 209 P.3d 467 (Wash. 2009). “The State’s theory was that Riofta shot at Sok to frighten his brother and deter him from cooperating with the prosecution of the Trang Dai defendants. ¶10 A jury convicted Riofta of first degree assault with a firearm.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.170(2)(a)(i) — 5 cases
Riofta v. State, 142 P.3d 193 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “[1] Following conviction, Riofta filed unsuccessful requests with the Pierce County prosecutor and the attorney general under former RCW 10.73.170 (2001) for post-conviction DNA testing of a white hat worn by the shooter.”
State v. Riofta, 134 Wash. App. 669 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “1 Following conviction, Riofta filed unsuccessful requests with the Pierce County prosecutor and the attorney general under former RCW 10.73.170 (2001) for post-conviction DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing of a white hat worn by the shooter.”
State Of Washington, V Lonnie E. Tennant (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
State Of Washington v. Tony Michael King (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
State Of Washington, V. Demeko B. Holland (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.170(2)(a)(i)(iii) — 1 case
Riofta v. State, 142 P.3d 193 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “[1] Following conviction, Riofta filed unsuccessful requests with the Pierce County prosecutor and the attorney general under former RCW 10.73.170 (2001) for post-conviction DNA testing of a white hat worn by the shooter.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.170(2)(a)(ii) — 4 cases
State v. Gray, 215 P.3d 961 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Gray appeals the trial court's denial of his 2007 request, pursuant to RCW 10.73.170, for postconviction DNA testing on the physical evidence used at trial.”
State v. Gray, 215 P.3d 961 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Gray appeals the trial court’s denial of his 2008 request, pursuant to RCW 10.73.170, for postconviction DNA testing on the physical evidence used at trial.”
State Of Washington, V Lonnie E. Tennant (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
State of Washington v. Pio Augustino Fagaautau (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.170(2)(a)(iii) — 17 cases
Riofta v. State, 142 P.3d 193 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “[1] Following conviction, Riofta filed unsuccessful requests with the Pierce County prosecutor and the attorney general under former RCW 10.73.170 (2001) for post-conviction DNA testing of a white hat worn by the shooter.”
State v. Riofta, 134 Wash. App. 669 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “1 Following conviction, Riofta filed unsuccessful requests with the Pierce County prosecutor and the attorney general under former RCW 10.73.170 (2001) for post-conviction DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing of a white hat worn by the shooter.”
State v. Riofta, 209 P.3d 467 (Wash. 2009). “The State’s theory was that Riofta shot at Sok to frighten his brother and deter him from cooperating with the prosecution of the Trang Dai defendants. ¶10 A jury convicted Riofta of first degree assault with a firearm.”
State v. Thompson, 271 P.3d 204 (Wash. 2012). “*207 Subsection (3) of RCW 10.73.170 provides that the motion shall be granted if "the convicted person has shown the likelihood that the DNA evidence would demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not basis.”
State v. Gray, 215 P.3d 961 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Gray appeals the trial court's denial of his 2007 request, pursuant to RCW 10.73.170, for postconviction DNA testing on the physical evidence used at trial.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.170(2)(b) — 16 cases
State Of Washington v. Kevin Jory Braa, 410 P.3d 1176 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “"RCW 10.73.170 provides a mechanism under Washington law for individuals to seek DNA testing in order to establish their innocence.”
Riofta v. State, 142 P.3d 193 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “[1] Following conviction, Riofta filed unsuccessful requests with the Pierce County prosecutor and the attorney general under former RCW 10.73.170 (2001) for post-conviction DNA testing of a white hat worn by the shooter.”
State v. Riofta, 134 Wash. App. 669 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “1 Following conviction, Riofta filed unsuccessful requests with the Pierce County prosecutor and the attorney general under former RCW 10.73.170 (2001) for post-conviction DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing of a white hat worn by the shooter.”
State v. Gray, 215 P.3d 961 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Gray appeals the trial court’s denial of his 2008 request, pursuant to RCW 10.73.170, for postconviction DNA testing on the physical evidence used at trial.”
State v. Gray, 215 P.3d 961 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Gray appeals the trial court's denial of his 2007 request, pursuant to RCW 10.73.170, for postconviction DNA testing on the physical evidence used at trial.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.170(2)(c) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. Tony Michael King (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.170(2)(iii) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. Joseph Anthony Digerolamo (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.170(3) — 45 cases
State v. Riofta, 209 P.3d 467 (Wash. 2009). “The State’s theory was that Riofta shot at Sok to frighten his brother and deter him from cooperating with the prosecution of the Trang Dai defendants. ¶10 A jury convicted Riofta of first degree assault with a firearm.”
State v. Crumpton, 289 P.3d 766 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “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…”
State v. Crumpton, 332 P.3d 448 (Wash. 2014). “In 2011, he petitioned the court for postconviction deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing pursuant to RCW 10.73.170. The superior court denied this motion, saying he had not shown a “ likelihood that the DNA evidence would demonstrate his innocence on a more probable than not…”
State v. Thompson, 271 P.3d 204 (Wash. 2012). “*207 Subsection (3) of RCW 10.73.170 provides that the motion shall be granted if "the convicted person has shown the likelihood that the DNA evidence would demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not basis.”
State v. Gentry, 356 P.3d 714 (Wash. 2015). “¶3 Judge Forbes granted the State’s motion to deny further DNA testing, ruling that Gentry could not meet the substantive standard of RCW 10.73.170, which requires a convicted person to show the likelihood that DNA evidence would demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.170(4) — 4 cases
State v. Thompson, 155 Wash. App. 294 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
State Of Washington, V. Kenneth D. Bolden (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Thompson, 229 P.3d 901 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
State Of Washington, V. Kebede B. Abawaji (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.170(5) — 2 cases
State of Washington v. Robert Middleworth, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
State Of Washington v. Joseph Anthony Digerolamo (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.