Sign Up for Vincent AI
State v. Braa
David Bruce Koch, Eric J. Nielsen, Jennifer J. Sweigert, Nielsen Broman & Koch PLLC, 1908 E. Madison St., Seattle, WA, 98122-2842, for Appellant.
Seth Aaron Fine, Attorney at Law, J Scott Halloran, Snohomish Co. Prosecuting Atty.-Criminal, Snohomish Co. Pros. Ofc., 3000 Rockefeller Ave., Everett, WA, 98201-4060, for Respondent.
PUBLISHED OPINION
¶1 Kevin Braa appeals from the superior court's order denying his postconviction motion to conduct a DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) test of evidence in his case. Braa contends that the superior court erred by reasoning that such testing is not available in self-defense cases because a favorable test result would not identify a different person as the perpetrator of the crime. Braa also contends that the superior court erred by denying his motion on the ground that he did not show that a favorable DNA test result would, on a more probable than not basis, establish his innocence.
¶2 We conclude that the superior court erred by ruling that, in effect, postconviction DNA testing is not available in self-defense cases. However, we also conclude that the superior court did not err by ruling that a favorable DNA test result would not, on a more probable than not basis, establish Braa's innocence.
¶3 Accordingly, we affirm the superior court's decision to deny the requested testing.
¶4 The circumstances of Braa's crime of conviction are set forth in an unpublished opinion, State v. Braa, noted at 150 Wash.App. 1035, 2009 WL 1591369, as follows:
Braa, 2009 WL 1591369, at *1-3.
¶5 Nine years after his conviction, Braa filed a motion in the superior court seeking DNA testing of a drop of blood taken from the parking lot of the tavern on the night that Whitney was shot. Braa argued that the DNA test would reveal new information suggesting that Whitney had bled in the parking lot, thereby supporting Braa's trial defense that he had shot Whitney in self-defense while Whitney was standing in close proximity over him.
¶6 The superior court denied the motion on two separate grounds. The superior court first concluded that Braa failed to satisfy the DNA testing statute's requirement that the petitioner show that DNA testing is material to the identity of the perpetrator of the crime. This was so, the superior court concluded, because "the identity of the shooter (the defendant) is undisputed." The superior court also concluded that Braa's motion failed to establish that "favorable DNA evidence, when considered along with all of the other evidence, would not demonstrate his innocence on a more probable than not basis."
¶7 Braa contends that the superior court erred by denying his postconviction motion to conduct a DNA test of the blood drop.
¶8 We review the superior court's decision on such a motion for abuse of discretion. State v. Crumpton, 181 Wash.2d 252, 257, 332 P.3d 448 (2014) (citing State v. Riofta, 166 Wash.2d 358, 370, 209 P.3d 467 (2009) ). The superior court "abuses its discretion if the decision rests on facts unsupported in the record or was...
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialExperience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting