This bill creates a presumptive right to postconviction DNA testing by amending RCW 10.73.170. It allows a person convicted of a felony who is serving a term of imprisonment to file a verified written motion in the sentencing court (with a copy to the state office of public defense) requesting DNA testing when such testing could support a claim of innocence. The motion must state that prior testing failed to meet scientific standards, that technology was not sufficiently developed earlier, or that new testing would be significantly more accurate or yield significant new information, explain why the DNA evidence is material to identity, an accomplice, or a sentence enhancement, and comply with procedural requirements established by court rule. Procedure and standards are changed: the court must grant a properly formed motion unless the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that the DNA evidence could not demonstrate a likelihood of innocence; in that evaluation the court must presume test results most favorable to the convicted person given the trial evidence. If the state does not oppose the motion within 30 days, the court must grant it. The bill specifies that a court order or laboratory request authorizing testing is not an indication of any party’s legal position. The bill also makes procedural provisions: indigent persons (as defined in RCW 10.101.010) may request appointment of counsel solely to prepare and present the motion (court discretion and court-rule compliance required); testing ordered under the section must be performed or contracted by the Washington State Patrol crime laboratory; a convicted person granted testing is entitled to discovery consistent with trial laws and court rules; victim contact related to testing is handled through victim/witness divisions; and biological material must be preserved in accordance with chapter 5.70 RCW, any sentencing court order, and applicable court rules. Affected entities include the courts, the state office of public defense, the Washington State Patrol crime laboratory, victim/witness divisions, and convicted persons. The extracted text does not include the referenced court rules, the full existing text of RCW 10.73.170, the definition of “indigent” from RCW 10.101.010, or the detailed preservation procedures in chapter 5.70 RCW.

If enacted, people serving felony sentences can more easily get postconviction DNA testing: they can file a verified motion with specific factual allegations, the court must presume favorable results when weighing the state’s case, and the motion will be granted unless the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that the DNA could not show a likelihood of innocence. The state has 30 days to oppose a motion or the court must grant it, testing must be done or contracted by the Washington State Patrol crime laboratory, the convicted person gets discovery if testing is ordered, and victim contact about testing is to be handled through victim/witness divisions; biological evidence must be preserved under existing preservation law and any sentencing orders. The groups most affected are incarcerated convicted persons (who gain a stronger, faster route to testing), courts (which will have a new presumptive duty to grant compliant motions and may appoint counsel for indigent movants), the State Office of Public Defense (likely more requests for representation on these motions), prosecutors (who must respond within 30 days and face a higher burden to block testing), and the Washington State Patrol crime lab (which will see increased testing or contracting demands and associated workload/cost implications). The bill leaves unclear important implementation details such as the court rules that govern procedural requirements, the precise application of the indigence definition it references, and specific preservation procedures from chapter 5.70 RCW.