Riofta v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• distinguishing Thomas because Riofta had pre-trial access to the evidence and to testing “of equal accuracy” to that sought post-trial; also distinguishing a New Jersey case in which “DNA testing was not widely accepted and was expensive at the time of the ... defendant’s trial”
• PRPs “must raise new points of fact and law that were not or could not have been raised” previously
• “or” is disjunctive unless there is clear legislative intent to the contrary
• \We presume that the word 'or' does not mean 'and' and that a statute's use of the word 'or' is disjunctive to separate phrases unless there is a clear legislative intent to the contrary.\
• \or\ is disjunctive unless there is clear legislative intent to the contrary
• “[w]e presume that the word ‘or’ does not mean ‘and’ and that a statute's use of the word ‘or’ is disjunctive to separate phrases unless there is a clear legislative intent to the contrary.” (quoting HJS Dev., Inc. v. Pierce County, 148 Wn.2d 451, 473 n.95, 61 P.3d 1141 (2003)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).