Under Washington law, there are numerous assault crimes that the state can accuse a person of committing. The severity of the charges depends, in part, on the level of harm the alleged victim suffered due to the assault. As discussed in a recent opinion issued in a Washington assault case, the prosecution can establish serious bodily harm without testimony from the victim or medical records. If you are accused of assault, it is in your best interest to talk to a Tacoma assault attorney about what evidence may be used against you.
Factual Setting and Procedural History
It is reported that the defendant was charged with second-degree assault following a physical altercation that took place in December 2022 at the county jail, where he repeatedly punched another inmate, causing facial bruising and a cut under the eye, resulting in a scar. The incident was documented by a county sheriff’s sergeant and deputy, who testified about the injuries sustained by the victim and reviewed surveillance footage showing the events leading up to and including the assault.
Allegedly, during the trial, the defendant argued for a self-defense instruction based on the victim’s actions before the assault, but the trial court found insufficient evidence to support this and did not give the instruction. The victim did not testify at trial, and no medical records were presented. The jury found the defendant guilty, and the court, recognizing his indigence, nevertheless imposed a $500 crime victim penalty assessment. The defendant challenged the conviction and sentence.
Sufficient Evidence of Assault Under Washington Law
The court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of the self-defense instruction, and the imposition of the victim penalty assessment. In evaluating the evidence, the court applied the standard of whether any rational trier of fact could find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It ultimately concluded that the victim’s injuries, which included facial bruising, lacerations, and a scar, met the definition of “substantial bodily harm” necessary for second-degree assault under state law.
Despite the defendant’s argument, the court found no evidence that he feared imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, which is required to justify a self-defense instruction. The court noted that mere presence or following by the victim did not equate to a threat.
Lastly, regarding the victim penalty assessment, the court acknowledged that a recent legislative amendment prevented imposing this fee on indigent defendants, and since the trial court had declared the appellant indigent, the victim penalty assessment was not applicable. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the conviction but remanded the case for the trial court to strike the $500 victim penalty assessment from the judgment and sentence.
Talk to an Experienced Tacoma Attorney & Present a Better Case
If you are charged with assault, you could face substantial penalties if you are convicted, and it is important to speak to an attorney about your options. The experienced Tacoma assault defense attorneys at The Law Offices of Smith & White can advise you of your possible defenses and aid you in seeking a positive result. In this case, the defense should have had the defendant testify. The nature of the conversation and any threats made by the “victim” could have been enough to get the self-defense instruction needed to win this case. Also, when winning on self-defense, the State may have to pay you back the cost of your defense. You can reach us through our form online or by calling us at 253-203-1645 to set up a conference.