Washington Court Discusses the Right to Present a Defense

In State v. Wilson, the court addressed one of the most fundamental protections in criminal law: a defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense. That right includes the ability to offer alternative explanations for alleged criminal conduct and to challenge the State’s theory of how an injury or offense occurred. Yet, as this case demonstrates, the right is not without limits. Trial courts retain broad discretion to exclude evidence they view as speculative, confusing, or insufficiently connected to the facts at issue. The court’s analysis in this case clarifies where the line is drawn between legitimate defensive evidence and conjecture, and how easily evidentiary limitations can impact the outcome of a criminal case. If you are charged with assault, it is smart to talk to a Tacoma assault defense attorney about what steps you can take to protect your rights.

Factual Background and Relationship History

The defendant and the alleged victim had been involved in an on-again, off-again relationship spanning more than a decade. On the day of the incident, the two were together at the apartment they shared, along with the defendant’s young child. According to the record, both individuals had been drinking heavily for much of the day. Earlier in the evening, law enforcement responded to a disturbance call at the apartment, but no arrest was made at that time.

An hour or two later, the alleged victim contacted emergency services again, reporting severe pain, difficulty breathing, and vomiting blood. During the call, she stated that the defendant had thrown a vacuum cleaner at her and struck her. Responding officers found her intoxicated, in visible distress, and complaining of pain in her side and abdomen. She was transported to the hospital for emergency treatment.

At the hospital, the alleged victim reported to medical staff that her boyfriend had struck her in the chest with a vacuum cleaner. She was admitted and treated for significant injuries, including multiple fractured ribs and a collapsed lung. The following day, while still hospitalized, she provided a written statement describing an argument that escalated into physical violence. In that statement, she claimed the defendant threw the vacuum at her and then punched her in the same area when she refused to leave and buy more alcohol. Based on these statements and the medical evidence, the State charged the defendant with second-degree assault involving domestic violence.

Pretrial Motions and Excluded Evidence

Before trial, defense counsel notified the State that the alleged victim had acknowledged previously injuring herself while intoxicated on an earlier occasion. According to defense counsel, the alleged victim had fallen while intoxicated in the past and sustained injuries. The defense sought to introduce this evidence to support an alternative explanation for how the injuries in the current case may have occurred, particularly given the undisputed level of intoxication on the night in question.

The State moved to exclude the evidence, arguing that a prior fall resulting in a different type of injury had little relevance to whether the defendant caused blunt force trauma to the alleged victim’s chest in this case. The trial court agreed, reasoning that injuries to a leg from a prior fall were too dissimilar to fractured ribs and a collapsed lung to meaningfully assist the jury. The court excluded the evidence, concluding it would confuse the issues rather than aid the jury’s determination.

Trial Evidence and Shifting Testimony

At trial, the State introduced audio from the 911 call, the alleged victim’s written hospital statement, and testimony from responding officers and medical professionals. The doctor testified that the injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma to the chest. The State relied heavily on the alleged victim’s contemporaneous statements and the severity of the injuries to establish that the defendant caused the harm.

The defense, however, presented a different picture of what transpired. The alleged victim testified that her relationship with the defendant was loving and stable. She stated that she did not want to be in court and did not want anything bad to happen to the defendant. She acknowledged that both she and the defendant were extremely intoxicated on the day of the incident and testified that she had no memory of calling 911, speaking with police, or making statements at the hospital. She testified that she did not recall how she was injured and affirmatively stated that she was not punched or kicked.

The defendant also testified, acknowledging his intoxication and fragmented memory of the evening. He denied assaulting the alleged victim and stated that he did not know how she sustained her injuries. Both parties agreed that serious injuries occurred, but neither testified that the defendant inflicted them.

The defense did not dispute the seriousness of the alleged victim’s injuries. Instead, the defense argued that the State failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused them. Emphasizing the extreme intoxication of both individuals, the lack of memory, and inconsistencies between early statements and trial testimony, defense counsel argued that no one truly knew what happened. Counsel suggested that the injuries could have resulted from a fall, including the possibility that the alleged victim fell on stairs outside the apartment.

In rebuttal, the State argued that the injuries were consistent with the alleged victim’s earlier statements and inconsistent with a simple fall. The State emphasized that it did not need to prove the precise mechanism of injury, only that the defendant caused it. The jury ultimately found the defendant guilty as charged. The defendant then challenged his conviction.

The Right to Present a Defense

On review, the defendant argued that excluding evidence of the alleged victim’s prior intoxicated fall deprived him of his constitutional right to present a defense. The court began its analysis by explaining that evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and that a defendant cannot challenge the exclusion of evidence without first making a sufficient offer of proof at trial.

The court emphasized that an offer of proof must be detailed enough to allow the trial court to assess admissibility and to create a record for later review. Here, the defense’s offer was limited to a general assertion that the alleged victim had previously fallen while intoxicated and injured her ankle. The record lacked details about when the fall occurred, how it happened, the nature of the injuries, or how the evidence would be admissible under the rules of evidence. Because the offer of proof was insufficient, the court held that the defendant failed to preserve the issue for review.

Even so, the court proceeded to analyze whether excluding the evidence violated the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense. The court reiterated that while the right to present a defense is fundamental, it is not unlimited. Trial courts retain discretion to exclude evidence that is only marginally relevant or that risks confusing the jury. Only relevant evidence falls within the scope of constitutional protection.

The court concluded that the defendant failed to demonstrate the relevance of the excluded evidence. A prior fall resulting in a leg injury, without more, did not meaningfully support an alternative explanation for severe chest injuries caused by blunt force trauma. Importantly, the court noted that the defendant was not prevented from presenting his core defense. He was permitted to argue that the State failed to prove causation, that both parties were intoxicated, and that no one knew how the injuries occurred. The possibility that an intoxicated person might fall was also within common understanding and did not require evidence of a prior incident to be argued effectively.

Because the defendant failed to make a sufficient offer of proof and was still able to present his defense theory at trial, the court held that neither the evidentiary ruling nor the exclusion of the evidence violated his constitutional rights. The conviction was affirmed in full.

Meet with an Experienced Tacoma Assault Defense Attorney

While the right to present a defense is fundamental, courts demand careful adherence to evidentiary rules, detailed offers of proof, and a clear nexus between the proposed evidence and the injuries at issue. If you are accused of an assault offense, it is in your best interest to talk to an attorney about what defenses you may be able to assert at trial. At Smith & White, PLLC, our experienced Tacoma assault defense attorneys understand the stakes in domestic violence and assault cases, and if you hire us, we will fight to help you seek a favorable outcome. Our firm represents clients throughout Washington, including Tacoma and surrounding communities. You can contact us through our online form or at 253-203-1645 to discuss your options.