A Tacoma man who hoped to use DNA evidence to overturn his criminal conviction lost his battle at the state Supreme Court but might have helped others convicted of crimes in Washington gain access to the powerful tool.

In a opinion released Thursday, justices ruled that Alexander Riofta, 32, does not have a right to a post-conviction DNA test that he believes would exonerate him in a 2000 shooting connected to Tacoma’s infamous Trang Dai massacre.

But in the same opinion, the state’s high court overturned a lower court ruling that narrowly defined when a convicted criminal could qualify for post-conviction DNA testing.

The state Court of Appeals previously ruled such testing should be restricted to evidence “newly available due to advances in technology.”

The high court disagreed, saying the testing should be more broadly available, even in cases where defendants did not seek to have DNA tests introduced at their original trials.

“The plain meaning of the statute allows DNA testing based on either advances in technology or the potential to produce significant new information,” according to the majority opinion.

That part of the ruling should help defendants who contend they were wrongfully convicted gain access to DNA testing, said Suzanne Lee Elliott, who filed a brief in the case on behalf of the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

“DNA has been the key to freeing a number of people based on faulty eyewitness testimony,” Elliott said.

In a 6-3 decision, the state’s high court said there was enough evidence presented at Riofta’s trial to convict him of first-degree assault.

DNA testing of a hair found on a hat left behind by the shooter would not do much to help his case, even if the hair was found to come from someone else as Riofta contends, the majority ruled.

The hat belonged to a man whose car was stolen and used in the crime, according to the majority opinion, and other people might have worn the hat between when the car was stolen and the shooting.

“The trial court reasonably concluded the absence of Riofta’s DNA would not likely demonstrate his innocence on a more probable than not basis,” Justice Barbara Madsen wrote for the five member-majority that included Chief Justice Gerry Alexander; Justices Susan Owens, Mary Fairhurst and James Johnson; and pro-tem Justice Bobbe Bridge.

Justices Charles Johnson, Richard Sanders and Tom Chambers dissented, calling the majority’s requirement that the test demonstrate innocence on a “more probable than not” basis was too onerous.

“In my view, if there is any serious reason to believe that some piece of tangible evidence could establish the innocence of the convicted man or woman, that evidence should be tested,” Chambers wrote.

Justice Debra Stephens did not participate in the decision.

In 2002, Riofta was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison after being convicted of first-degree assault for shooting at the brother of a man who had agreed to testify against some of the defendants in the Trang Dai shooting.

The shooting July 5, 1998, left five dead and five others wounded at a Vietnamese restaurant.

Riofta’s case was championed by Innocence Project Northwest at the University of Washington, which works to exonerate defendants thought to be wrongfully convicted of crimes.

Jacky McMurtrie, who heads the project, said her group will continue to fight for Riofta at the federal level.

Adam Lynn: 253-597-8644

adam.lynn@thenewstribune.com

blogs.thenewstribune.com/crime