Court Discusses Evidence Needed to Prove Assault Under Washington Law

When prosecutors pursue felony charges, they must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If the State cannot meet that burden, convictions cannot stand. Washington vs McKinlay highlights this principle. The decision shows how courts scrutinize evidence for assault and attempting to elude. It also shows why a defendant’s actions cannot be stretched to fit elements the State did not actually prove.

If you’ve been accused of assault in Tacoma or Pierce County, call the Law Offices of Smith & White at 253-203-1645 to speak with an experienced defense attorney.

Facts of the Case

In May 2023, two tow-yard employees went to their company’s lot around dusk and saw two men inside the fenced yard taking items from stored vehicles—one later confirmed to be McKinlay. When the employees arrived in their tow truck, both men ran toward gaps in the fence. One employee confronted the other man at a gap, ordered him outside the fence and onto the ground, and told his coworker to call 911.

Moments later, McKinlay returned in a white Toyota Camry and stopped near the tow truck. The man who had been on the ground shoved the employee, and a brief scuffle followed. McKinlay displayed what looked like a handgun and pointed it at both employees—first while standing outside the car, then from the driver’s seat through the passenger window. The employee released the man, who got into the Camry. McKinlay restarted the car, which had stalled, and drove away.

Police located the Camry from the 911 description. When officers signaled a stop with lights and siren, McKinlay accelerated onto I-5, reached about 90 mph, feigned a stop on the shoulder, then swerved in front of a patrol car, spun around, and tried to enter oncoming lanes before a collision ended the pursuit.

Charges and Trial Result

The State charged McKinlay with first-degree burglary, two counts of second-degree assault, attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, and vehicular assault. After trial, the jury acquitted him of vehicular assault and convicted him of the remaining counts. On appeal, only the two assault counts and the eluding count were at issue; the burglary conviction was not challenged. The appellate court reviewed the record for legal sufficiency and asked whether a rational juror could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.

What the State Had to Prove

On appeal, the court compared the trial evidence to the specific theories the State chose:

Second-degree assault (felony-intent theory): the State had to prove an assault and that McKinlay committed that assault with intent to commit burglary in the second degree—that is, the assault furthered the burglary itself, not escape after the fact.
Attempting to elude: the State had to prove McKinlay willfully failed to stop after an officer in uniform in a marked vehicle gave a signal with lights and siren, and that he drove recklessly during the flight.

These elements matter because appellate courts do not cure gaps in proof. The State must satisfy every element of the charged theory.

How the Court Analyzed the Assault Counts

Prosecutors argued that McKinlay pointed the gun with intent to commit burglary. The court disagreed. By the time the gun appeared, the burglary inside the fenced yard had ended. McKinlay was outside the property in the Camry. The evidence showed he used the gun to free the other man and leave, not to carry out a burglary. Washington’s felony-intent version of second-degree assault does not extend to “immediate flight,” so the State could not rely on escape conduct to supply felony intent.

Result: the felony-intent element was not proven, so the two second-degree assault convictions could not stand.

What the Court Did Instead: Lesser Assault

The record still established an assault because McKinlay pointed a gun at both employees. The jury had received an instruction on the lesser included offense. The Court of Appeals therefore modified the verdicts to two counts of fourth-degree assault and remanded for resentencing on those lesser offenses. That remedy follows Washington practice when the evidence supports a lesser charge the jury was told to consider.

How the Court Analyzed the Eluding Count

Attempting to elude requires proof that the officer who gave the stop signal was in uniform. The officers described the chase, their lights, and their sirens. No one testified they were in uniform or described what they wore. Washington law makes the “uniformed officer” requirement an express element. Proof that the driver knew a patrol car was behind him does not replace proof of a uniform.

Result: the court reversed the attempting-to-elude conviction.

What This Means for Assault Cases in Tacoma and Pierce County

Every element matters. Courts will not stretch statutes to cover facts the State did not prove.
Intent is specific. To elevate an assault based on felony intent, the State must connect the assault to the felony itself—not to flight or rescue of an accomplice.
Procedural elements decide cases. Requirements like proving a uniformed officer signaled a stop often determine outcomes on eluding.
Lesser offenses influence sentencing. When juries hear lesser-included options and the evidence fits only those counts, appellate courts can reduce the convictions—often cutting potential penalties.

Practical Steps if You’re Charged with Assault or Eluding

Do not give statements to the police before you speak with counsel.
Call a defense lawyer early to secure videos, dispatch logs, 911 recordings, and body-worn camera footage that can bear on sufficiency.
Map the elements with your attorney: for each count, identify what the State must prove and where the record is thin.
Consider all outcomes: dismissal, reduction to a lesser offense, or appeal may be viable depending on the evidence and jury instructions.

Talk to an Experienced Tacoma Criminal Defense Attorney

Washington vs McKinlay shows how closely courts test the State’s evidence. Your future should not hinge on assumptions or missing elements. At Smith & White, PLLC, we challenge weak proof, push back on overcharged cases, and protect our clients throughout Tacoma and Pierce County.

Call the Law Offices of Smith & White at 253-203-1645 for a free consultation with a Tacoma criminal defense lawyer.