What Evidence is Needed for a Conviction in an Assault Case is 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.
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, it is wise to talk to a Tacoma assault defense lawyer as soon as possible.
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.
Meet with an Experienced Tacoma Defense Attorney
Assault is a serious crime, but there are often numerous defenses people charged with such offenses can assert to avoid a conviction. Simply because the State charges a person with assault does not mean it will be able to obtain a conviction, as in many cases, the State will lack sufficient evidence to establish a defendant’s guilt. If you are charged with an assault crime, you could face significant penalties, and you should speak to an attorney as soon as possible.
The experienced Tacoma assault defense attorneys at The Law Offices of Smith & White possess the resources and knowledge needed to obtain a favorable outcome, and if you hire us, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can contact us through our form online or by calling us at 253-203-1645 to set up a meeting.