What Evidence is Needed for an Assault Conviction in Washington?
Under Washington law, in order to convict a person of an assault offense, the prosecution has to prove each element of the crime. This does not necessarily mean that they must prove the defendant’s mental status at the time the crime was committed, however, as many assault offenses do not include an element of intent.
Also, if a person intentionally makes contact with another person in a harmful or offensive manner, it is considered assault, regardless of whether the contact actually causes harm. There are numerous degrees of assault in Washington, including assault in the third degree, which is an assault against a person in one of several listed professions.
Prosecutors generally have to prove intent during assault trials, which is challenging. Though assault in the first and second degree are the more serious charges, lesser assault charges still require your attention. In addition to reviewing and challenging the prosecution’s evidence, we will introduce our own physical evidence, photos, and witness testimony to prove your defense. If the prosecution doesn’t have enough evidence to prove an assault, they may even drop the charges before a trial.
In cases involving assault of law enforcement agents, this often means the prosecution has to demonstrate the defendant acted with intent.
If you are faced with assault charges, call the Law Offices of Smith & White at 253-203-1645 to speak with an experienced assault defense attorney.
Practical Steps if You’re Charged with Assault in Washington
- 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.
Evidence Needed to Establish Guilt in an Assault Case
Under Washington law, a person who knowingly inflicts bodily injury that is designed to cause agony or pain that is equal to that caused by torture is guilty of assault in the second degree. Thus, in the subject case, the State needed to prove that the defendant knowingly caused the victim to suffer bodily injuries that caused such agony or pain that it was equivalent to that brought about by torture.
The court explained that the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the State showed that the defendant struck the victim so hard that she fell to the floor, and when she was on the floor, proceeded to punch her and dump containers of urine on her head. Thus, the court found that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed second-degree assault. As such, it affirmed his conviction.
Witness Statements
The alleged victim may testify as a witness for the prosecution during the trial. Our attorneys will prepare for our opportunity to cross-examine witnesses on the stand, whether they are an alleged victim, eyewitness, character witness, or expert witness. It is much harder for prosecutors to prove assault charges if the alleged victim recants or refuses to testify.
Our Washington criminal defense lawyers can have our own witnesses testify during a trial, too. Witness testimony may place you elsewhere during an alleged assault, giving you an alibi, or an eyewitness may testify the alleged victim initiated the interaction.
Physical Evidence
Without physical evidence, proving assault charges becomes much harder for the prosecution. We can have our own experts test physical evidence and point out any chain of custody issues with physical evidence introduced by the prosecution.
Physical evidence providing an alternative explanation for the assault is an example of “exculpatory” evidence, which essentially proves your innocence, like another person’s fingerprints or DNA being present. Conflicting physical evidence from the prosecution and defense may create enough reasonable doubt in jurors’ minds to find the defendant not guilty.
Medical Records
Prosecutors may use medical records of the alleged victim’s injuries and photos of cuts, bruises, lacerations, and other wounds as evidence. That evidence might only tell one side of the story, as we may have our own medical evidence of the injuries you suffered during the event. Medical records may reveal that you sustained defensive wounds, indicating that you were only defending yourself from an attack.
Correspondence
Suppose the defendant and the alleged victim know each other personally, which is often the case when fourth-degree assault charges are filed after domestic violence incidents in Washington. Prosecutors may try to use correspondence to paint you in a certain light, which we can combat with evidence of our own.
We can also use texts, emails, phone calls, and other correspondence to show the reality of the situation.
How Do Prosecutors Prove Different Assault Charges in Washington State?
To prove an assault charge, the prosecutor must prove intent, generally. The defendant must have intended to physical harm, threaten, or intimidate the alleged victim to be found guilty, depending on the degree of assault they are charged with.
Assault in the First Degree
To prove assault in the first degree, the prosecution must prove you intended to inflict great bodily harm while assaulting another person with a firearm or deadly weapon with force likely to cause serious bodily harm or death, transmitting HIV to a child or vulnerable adult, or assaulting another person and inflicting great bodily harm.
Assault in the Second Degree
Intentionally assaulting and inflicting substantial bodily harm on another person is assault in the second degree in Washington, as is assaulting someone with a deadly weapon or with the intent to commit a felony. Allegedly strangulating or suffocating another person is also charged with assault in the second degree. If your charges involve use of deadly weapon, but another person’s DNA is on the weapon in question, we may be able to get the second-degree assault charge dropped or reduced.
Assault in the Third Degree
Most likely, the prosecution must prove that you caused bodily harm that was accompanied by substantial pain and demonstrated criminal negligence to get a conviction for assault in the third degree in Washington.
Assault in the Fourth Degree
Assault in the fourth degree is a common domestic violence charge in Washington, requiring prosecutors to prove the intimate or family relationship as well as the alleged violence going on in the home. We may be able to get these charges dismissed after we show evidence that clarifies the relationship or exposes the actual antagonist. These lesser assault charges are still damaging upon conviction, so reach out for help if you were recently arrested.
Blocking Evidence from Being Used to Prove Assault Charges
If you are facing assault charges in Washington, call us right away. We may block some evidence from being admitted, meaning the jury cannot evaluate it when reaching a verdict. If we can block enough evidence, the charges against you might get dropped.
We can file motions to suppress tainted physical evidence and anything that would unfairly sway the jury. If the prosecution has a weak case to begin with, and we can convince the judge to block much of their evidence, they may not have enough to make the charges stick.
Example 1: Case Setting
It is alleged that a police officer approached the defendant in response to a service call. The defendant, who was intoxicated and incoherent, became agitated, yelled, and flailed her arms. Despite the officer’s warnings, she continued yelling and then advanced towards him with her chest pushed forward. The defendant, fearing an assault, raised his hand defensively but did not approach her. The defendant made contact with his hand and then raised her hands, prompting the defendant to restrain her and place her under arrest. Another officer, who is Black, arrived and assisted with the defendant, who thrashed and directed a racial slur at him before kicking him twice.
Reportedly, the state charged the defendant with two counts of assault in the third degree, one for each officer. Body camera footage of the incidents was admitted at trial, but did not show the kicks. Before the trial, the defendant objected to the admissibility of footage containing the racial slur, arguing it was prejudicial and irrelevant, but the court allowed it, providing a curative instruction to the jury. The jury found the defendant guilty on both counts. She then challenged the verdict.
Evidence Needed to Support Assault Convictions
In this example, the first court first addressed the sufficiency of the evidence for the conviction of assault against the first officer. To do so, the court reviewed the evidence, considering whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The court, while noting that intent was an element of the charged offenses, emphasized that intent can be inferred from the circumstances. The court ultimately found that the evidence, including body camera footage and the defendant’s testimony, showed the defendant intentionally moved towards the officer in a threatening manner, supporting her conviction.
Next, the court reviewed the trial court’s decision to admit body camera footage containing the racial slur, analyzing whether this evidence was relevant and whether its probative value was outweighed by potential prejudice. The court determined the slur was relevant as it was uttered during the alleged assault and indicative of the defendant’s intent. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence, as it was crucial to the State’s case, and the court had issued a limiting instruction to mitigate potential prejudice. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s evidentiary ruling and the convictions.
Example 2: Rational Tiers of Fact in Regards to Evidence
Recently, a Washington court discussed what evidence is needed to prove a defendant committed an assault offense in a case in which the State charged the defendant with more than forty crimes. It is reported that the defendant and the victim began dating in March 2016. Shortly after they began dating, the defendant advised the victim that he would leave his girlfriend if the victim would prostitute herself for money. The victim began posting prostitution ads and going on prostitution calls and gave the money she earned to the defendant.
Allegedly, after the victim became a prostitute, the defendant began to hit, cut, burn, and sexually abuse her. He threatened to kill her if she did not do as he directed or attempted to leave him. In January 2018, the State charged the defendant with 45 separate criminal offenses, including second-degree assault. He was convicted on over forty counts, including the assault charges, and he appealed, arguing the State lacked sufficient evidence to prove his guilt.
Example 3: The Prosecution’s Ability to Demonstrate Intent
In a recent Washington matter in which the court rejected the defendant’s assertion that his assault conviction should be vacated as the prosecution did not demonstrate he intended to strangle his victim.
It is reported that the defendant was charged with assault by strangulation following an altercation with the victim, his daughter. During the trial, the victim testified that she heard the defendant pounding on her bedroom door and fearing for her safety, grabbed a box cutter in self-defense. A struggle followed, during which the defendant put her in a headlock and applied pressure to her throat. The defendant provided an alternative account of the events, claiming that he accidentally got his hand stuck in the victim’s door, which led to a confrontation and physical struggle.
Allegedly, law enforcement officers testified regarding the scene upon their arrival and the injuries visible on the victim, which were consistent with strangulation. Expert testimony was provided on the physiology of strangulation as well. The defendant was found guilty, after which he appealed.
Evidence Needed to Prove Intent
On appeal, the central issue was the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt of assault in the second degree by strangulation. Specifically, the defendant argued that the State failed to establish his specific intent to strangle the victim.
The court declined to adopt the defendant’s reasoning, clarifying in its analysis that under Washington law, strangulation can be proven in two ways. The first is by the actual injury suffered by the victim, while the second is by the specific intent of the perpetrator to obstruct the victim’s blood flow or ability to breathe. Thus, the court deemed the defendant’s assertion that the State was required to prove his intent to obstruct blood flow or breathing inaccurate.
The court emphasized that the State could proceed on either or both of these subalternatives within the strangulation alternative of the assault in the second degree statute. In this case, the evidence presented by the State, including the victim’s testimony, expert analysis of her injuries, and the accounts of witnesses, was deemed sufficient to prove the charge of assault in the second degree by strangulation. As such, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.
Example 4: Sufficient Evidence of Assault 2 (Serious Bodily Injury) Under Washington Law
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.
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.
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.
Example 5: Officer Testimony Representing Sufficient Evidence to Uphold a Conviction for Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer
Under Washington law, to convict a defendant of third-degree assault of a law enforcement officer the state is required to prove the officer was performing his or her job duties at the time of the assault and that the defendant intended to hit the officer. In Washington v. Eagle, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington upheld the defendant’s conviction for third-degree assault of an officer, finding the officer’s testimony that he was performing his job at the time of the incident and believed the defendant intended to hit him was sufficient evidence of the crime charged. If you face assault charges, it is important to retain a Washington assault defense attorney who will aggressively advocate on your behalf.
Facts of the Case
Purportedly, a bystander called the police after she heard a man and woman fighting. When the police arrived, they spoke with a woman who stated the defendant hit her and pushed her to the ground. One of the police officers called the defendant, and the defendant agreed to meet with the officer at a park. After the defendant arrived, he spoke with the officer. The officer then advised the defendant he was under arrest. The defendant did not surrender to the arrest, and an altercation ensued, during which the officer had to force the defendant to the ground. The altercation was recorded via a surveillance camera. The defendant was charged with fourth-degree assault of the woman, but the charge was dropped. He was also charged with third-degree assault of a law enforcement officer.
Allegedly, the officer testified that he recalled the defendant trying to hit him and believed the video footage showed the defendant hitting him, but he could not remember defendant making contact. The surveillance video was shown to the jury during the trial, and they viewed the video frame by frame during deliberations. The jury subsequently convicted the defendant. The defendant moved for a new trial arguing there was insufficient evidence to convict him and the court erred in allowing the jury to review the video frame by frame because it was prejudicial. The court denied defendant’s motion, and he appealed.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals of The State of Washington
On appeal, the defendant argued the prosecutor had committed misconduct by mentioning the call to the police, which had been prohibited via a motion in limine, and allowing the officer to testify that he took photographs. The court disagreed, noting that the jury was directed to disregard the call and that they were not advised of the substance of the call, and therefore it was not prejudicial. Similarly, the court found that allowing testimony regarding the officer’s photographs was not prejudicial either, as no details were provided regarding the content of the photographs.
Regarding the defendant’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to convict him, the court noted that the state was required to prove the officer was in the course of his duties when the defendant assaulted him. The court held that even if the jury did not consider testimony regarding the call to the police or photographs taken by the officer, the officer’s testimony that he was performing his job at the time of the assault was sufficient to establish he was working at the time of the assault. Lastly, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to hit the officer. The court stated that the officer’s testimony that he believed the defendant was going to hit him and the video footage were sufficient to show the defendant’s intent. The court declined to adopt the defendant’s reasoning that the jury did not decide to convict the defendant until it viewed the frame by frame video, noting that it was not relevant. Further, the court noted that the officer’s testimony in and of itself was sufficient to convict the defendant.
Example 6: Evidence of Other Acts in Assault Cases
Criminal defendants are afforded the right to a fair trial. Among other things, this means that the State cannot introduce evidence that a defendant engaged in other wrongs, crimes, or bad acts to show that the defendant has bad character and acted in conformance with that character in committing the underlying offense. Such evidence may be admitted for other reasons, though, as long as it is not overly prejudicial. Recently, a Washington court issued an opinion discussing the preclusion of evidence of other wrongs and crimes in a case where the defendant appealed his numerous convictions for assault. If you are accused of committing an assault crime, it is in your best interest to meet with a trusted Washington criminal defense attorney to assess your possible defenses.
The Facts of the Case
It is reported that the defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of fourth-degree assault. The charges arose out of an altercation with his girlfriend. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to preclude the State from introducing evidence that he owned weapons. The trial court denied his motion, and during the trial, the State offered testimony indicating that the defendant owned a gun and kept it in the home he shared with his girlfriend. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged, after which he appealed, arguing the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his gun ownership.
Admission of Evidence of Other Crimes, Bad Acts, and Wrongs
Under Washington law, evidence of bad acts, crimes, or wrongs is inadmissible to demonstrate a person’s character or to show that the person acted in conformance with that character. Trial courts have to begin with the assumption that such evidence should not be admitted. It is permissible to admit it, however, if it is introduced to show intent, knowledge, or a lack of mistake.
Prior to admitting such evidence for these limited purposes, though, a court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the wrongful act occurred and identify the reason the party seeks to introduce the evidence. The court must also determine whether the evidence is relevant for purposes of proving an element of the charged offense, and whether its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.
In the subject case, the appellate court found that the defendant’s gun ownership may constitute an act, and could potentially fall under the umbrella of the exclusionary rule. But, as evidence the defendant owned a gun was not offered to show that he acted in conformity with a certain character on the date of the crime, it should not have been excluded. As such, the appellate court found that the trial court did not err in admitting it.
Example 6: A Case Involving Evidence Needed for a Conviction of 3rd Degree Assault
A Washington appellate court recently explained what is considered sufficient evidence to prove a defendant committed assault in the third degree, in a case in which the defendant alleged the State lacked sufficient evidence to support his conviction. If you live in Washington and are charged with assault in the third degree you should confer with an experienced Washington criminal defense attorney to discuss your case.
Reportedly, the police went to a home in response to a call made to 911 alleging domestic violence. When the police arrived at the scene, they observed the victim standing in the street visibly upset, and screaming she needed to get her kids back. Immediately after the police arrived, the defendant came out of the home screaming at the victim. He then began yelling profanity at the police and stated that the police should not be there because it was not a domestic violence issue. The police attempted to question the defendant but he turned to go back into the house.
It is alleged that the police then attempted to restrain the defendant and they engaged in a scuffle, and at one point the defendant grabbed one of the police officers by the shoulder. At one point, the defendant picked up a piece of wood that had broken off of the railing on the ramp leading into the home and raised it over his head as though he intended to use it as a weapon. The defendant was subsequently charged with and convicted of assault in the third degree of a police officer. He appealed, arguing the State had produced insufficient evidence to support his conviction.
Proving Assault in the Third Degree
To prove the defendant committed assault in the third degree, the jury was required to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant assaulted a police officer while the officer was performing his official duties and that the assault occurred in the State of Washington. Under the Revised Code of Washington, an assault is the act of intentionally striking or touching another person in a harmful or offensive manner, regardless of whether the touching causes any bodily injury. A strike or touch is considered offensive if it would offend an individual who is not overly sensitive.
An assault can also be an act done with the intent to cause physical harm, but failing to do so, or an act committed with the intent of placing someone in fear of physical harm, even if the actor did not actually intend to harm the person. Here, the court found that there was ample evidence to support the defendant’s conviction. Specifically, the State presented evidence that the police officer felt pressure on the right side of his head during the scuffle and later had a cut and mark on his scalp. As such, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.
Example 7: Washington vs McKinlay
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.
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 Evidence is Sufficient to Establish Assault Third Degree in Washington?
In a recent opinion issued in a Washington assault case, in which the court reversed the defendant’s conviction, finding that the State provided insufficient evidence of the elements of the defense. If you have been charged with an assault crime, it is essential that you understand your rights, and it is in your best interest to talk to a Tacoma assault defense attorney.
Factual and Procedural Setting
Reportedly, the state charged the defendant with third-degree assault after he spat on a doctor while being treated at a hospital. The incident occurred after the defendant had been found in a distressed state by paramedics, who believed he was under the influence of narcotics. The defendant was placed in restraints and a “spit sock” to prevent bodily fluid exposure during his transport to the hospital.
It is reported that upon arrival, while receiving treatment in the emergency room, the defendant complained of breathing difficulties, prompting the doctor to lift the spit sock. The defendant then cleared his throat and spat on the doctor, leading to the assault charge. At trial, the State presented several witnesses, including paramedics, a nurse, and police officers, but failed to introduce direct evidence confirming the doctor’s professional credentials or licensure. The defendant was convicted of third-degree assault. He challenged his conviction, arguing that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the doctor was a licensed physician or health care provider, which was a necessary element of the crime.
Evidence Sufficient to Establish an Assault Offense
Under Washington law, for third-degree assault to be proven in this context, the State needed to show that the victim was a nurse, physician, or health care provider licensed or certified under specific statutes and performing their duties at the time of the assault. The court noted that the State introduced no direct evidence that the doctor was licensed under the relevant statutes.
While witnesses referred to the individual as a doctor and referenced his employment at the hospital, the court found these inferences insufficient to meet the State’s burden of proof. The State argued that a reasonable jury could have inferred that the doctor was a licensed physician based on his title and employment at a licensed hospital, but the court rejected this reasoning, citing precedent that required explicit evidence of licensure or certification.
The court then compared the case to previous rulings where a conviction for third-degree assault was overturned due to the absence of evidence confirming the victim’s status as a licensed healthcare provider.
Similar to that case, the court concluded that the failure to present direct evidence of the doctor’s qualifications meant that the jury could not reasonably find beyond a reasonable doubt that an essential element of the crime had been proven. As a result, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for entry of a judgment of acquittal.
Meet with a Seasoned Assault Defense Attorney Regarding Your Charges
If you face charges of assault in Washington, it is imperative to meet with a seasoned Washington assault defense attorney to discuss your charges and your available defenses. The skillful criminal defense attorneys of the Law Offices of Smith & White will provide you with a diligent and thorough defense to help you fight to retain your liberties. We can be reached at (253) 203-1645 or through our online form to set up a meeting to discuss your case.