State Of Washington, V. Kebede B. Abawaji
81867-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 6, 2021Background
- Kebede Abawaji attacked his ex-wife Tigist Belte on April 1, 2015; Belte testified he struck her in the head with a hammer and suffered multiple depressed skull fractures.
- Abawaji called 911 saying he hit his wife with a hammer and later admitted to officers he had used a hammer; police located a hammer where Abawaji said it would be found.
- The hammer was never DNA-tested at trial. Abawaji was convicted of second-degree attempted murder with a deadly-weapon enhancement and the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- In August 2019 Abawaji filed a verified RCW 10.73.170 motion for postconviction DNA testing of the hammer and requested appointment of counsel; the superior court denied both requests in July 2020.
- Abawaji argued a favorable DNA result (no Belte DNA on the hammer) would more likely than not demonstrate his innocence; the State and the court relied on the victim’s testimony, Abawaji’s admissions, the hammer’s recovery, and the jury’s knowledge of the absence of DNA evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court erred in denying postconviction DNA testing under RCW 10.73.170 | A DNA test excluding Belte from the hammer would show he did not use the hammer and therefore prove innocence more likely than not | Absence of Belte's DNA on the hammer does not overcome Abawaji's admissions, Belte's testimony, medical injuries, and the hammer’s recovery; identity of perpetrator not seriously disputed | Denied — court did not abuse discretion; assuming an exculpatory result, considering the whole record, appellant failed to show innocence by a more probable than not standard |
| Whether the superior court erred by denying appointment of counsel under RCW 10.73.170(4) | Abawaji was indigent and the court should have appointed counsel to prepare and present the DNA motion | The motion was sufficiently presented by Abawaji; even if indigent, appointment would not significantly advance the motion and was discretionary | Denied — no abuse of discretion; court reasonably concluded counsel was unnecessary to advance the motion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crumpton, 181 Wn.2d 252 (2014) (sets RCW 10.73.170 standard and reviews DNA-testing motions for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Riofta, 166 Wn.2d 358 (2009) (discusses procedural leniency and substantive burden for postconviction DNA requests)
- State v. Braa, 2 Wn. App. 2d 510 (2018) (explains limits on favorable inferences from hypothetical exculpatory DNA results)
- State v. Gray, 151 Wn. App. 762 (2009) (DNA exclusion can demonstrate innocence where lone perpetrator identity is the central issue)
- State v. Thompson, 173 Wn.2d 865 (2012) (DNA testing can exculpate or inculpate when identity is in dispute)
- State v. Burke, 196 Wn.2d 712 (2021) (abuse-of-discretion standard for collateral relief and appointment considerations)