Proving Intent in Washington Criminal Cases

In criminal cases, the state bears the burden of proof. Specifically, in order to prove a criminal defendant’s guilt, the state must establish each element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In many instances, this means that the state has to prove the defendant acted with intent. In such cases, if the defendant is convicted despite a lack of evidence that they acted knowingly, their conviction may be reversed.

This was illustrated recently in a Washington matter in which the court found that the state failed to prove that the defendant knowingly violated his domestic violence no-contact order. If you are charged with a crime of domestic violence, it is smart to contact a Tacoma domestic violence defense lawyer regarding your potential defenses.

Example: The State of Washington Fails to Demonstrate Intent in an Assault Case

It is reported that the defendant was subject to a domestic violence no-contact order that prevented him from coming within 500 feet of his estranged wife’s home. In September 2020, the wife’s neighbor saw the defendant walking in his backyard. The neighbor approached the defendant to ask him what he was doing on his property. Instead of responding, the defendant began to run and subsequently ran in front of his estranged wife’s trailer.

It is alleged that following the incident, the defendant was charged with numerous crimes, including felony violation of the domestic violence no-contact order. He waived his right to a jury trial, and the case proceeded to a bench trial. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly violated the terms of his no-contact order. Thus, he was convicted. He then appealed.

Establishing Intent in Criminal Cases

Pursuant to Washington law, the state bears the burden of establishing each element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. To assess whether the state has produced sufficient evidence to support a conviction, a court will review the evidence in a light most favorable to the state and evaluate whether any reasonable fact finder could find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court further explained that if a defendant raises a claim of insufficient evidence, they admit the truth of the state’s evidence and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it. In the subject case, the court noted that the state was required to show that the defendant had knowledge of the no-contact order and that he willfully engaged in contact with another in a manner that is prohibited by the order. Willfulness requires a purposeful act. The court ultimately found that the state failed to demonstrate that the defendant acted willfully; rather, the violation was accidental. Thus, it vacated the defendant’s conviction.

What is “Transferred Intent” in a Washington Criminal Case?

In some cases, legal principles like “transferred intent” can elevate a lower-level offense into a felony.

Transferred intent is a legal principle that applies when a person intends to harm one individual but instead harms another. The law treats the intent as if it were directed toward the actual victim.

In Washington assault cases:

If you intend to assault one person but strike someone else, the intent “transfers” to the person harmed.
The victim’s status matters. If the unintended victim is a law enforcement officer performing official duties, the assault is elevated to third-degree assault under RCW 9A.36.031(1)(g).
The State does not need to prove you knew the victim was an officer. The law applies strictly based on the victim’s identity and role.

Why Transferred Intent in Important to Understand

Transferred intent is powerful. Even if your actions were not aimed at a police officer, you can still face elevated charges if an officer is struck.
Strict liability for officer status. You do not need to know or intend that the victim was an officer—if the officer is performing official duties, the charge is third-degree assault.
Fewer defense options. In some cases, you may not have the opportunity to argue for a lesser offense at trial.

These rules can result in severe penalties for conduct that might otherwise be charged as a misdemeanor if another person were involved.

This principle has been confirmed in multiple Washington cases, including State v. Wilson, which held that once intent to assault is established, it transfers regardless of whether the victim was the intended target.

Another recent Washington case highlights how these doctrines play out in court and why it is essential to understand them if you are facing assault allegations. If you’ve been charged with assault in Tacoma or Pierce County, a knowledgeable defense lawyer can make a critical difference in your case.

Law enforcement responded to a home in Royal City after receiving a call about a domestic disturbance that had become physical. When officers arrived, they found the defendant visibly upset—crying, yelling, and highly agitated.

Inside, police attempted to place her in handcuffs. She resisted, but after being restrained, she was escorted outside to a patrol vehicle. As one sergeant opened the car door, the defendant turned, continued shouting, and spit. The spit struck the sergeant’s glasses, cheek, and forehead.

The defendant testified that she had not aimed at the officer but at her uncle, who had followed her outside and allegedly made a provoking comment. According to her, the act was a reaction to her uncle rather than law enforcement.

The Charges Filed in This Case

Prosecutors charged her with:

Third-degree assault for spitting on a law enforcement officer
Obstructing a law enforcement officer for resisting officers during the incident

Under Washington law, spitting on an officer in the line of duty can meet the definition of third-degree assault.

The prosecution also asked the court to include an instruction on transferred intent, arguing that even if she intended to spit on her uncle, her intent transferred to the officer once he was the one struck.

The defense requested a lesser included instruction for fourth-degree assault, arguing that the jury should have the option to convict on a lower charge if they believed her spit was aimed at her uncle.

The trial court denied this request, reasoning that Washington’s transferred intent doctrine applied, and because the victim was an officer, the higher charge was appropriate.

How the Jury Reached Its Decision

At trial, prosecutors told jurors they could convict her if they believed she either:

Intentionally spat at the officer, or
Intentionally spat at her uncle but hit the officer instead

The defense maintained she did not intend to spit on anyone.

The jury ultimately convicted her of third-degree assault and obstructing a law enforcement officer.

She appealed, claiming that the judge’s refusal to allow the jury to consider fourth-degree assault deprived her of a fair trial.

Why the Court Rejected the Lesser Charge

The appellate court reviewed the case under Washington’s two-part test for lesser included offenses from State v. Workman.

Legal prong: All elements of the lesser offense must be included in the greater. Both sides agreed this was satisfied.
Factual prong: There must be evidence that would allow a rational jury to convict on the lesser instead of the greater offense.

The court emphasized that once the spit hit the officer, transferred intent applied. Because the victim was a law enforcement officer engaged in official duties, no rational jury could have found her guilty of only fourth-degree assault.

Therefore, the trial court was correct to deny the lesser instruction. The conviction for third-degree assault stood.

If You Have Questions About Intent, Meet with One of Our Experienced Criminal Lawyers

If you are charged with a crime of domestic violence, it is important to understand your rights, and you should meet with an attorney. The dedicated Tacoma criminal defense lawyers of The Law Offices of Smith & White can assess the circumstances surrounding your charges and assist you in seeking the best legal outcome possible under the facts of your case. You can reach us through our form online or by calling us at (253) 203-1645 to set up a meeting.