Assault Charges in Washington: What You Need to Know About Fear (Apprehension)
Assault Charges in Washington: What You Need to Know about Fear (Apprehension)
In Washington, you can be convicted of assault even if no one is touched or physically hurt. Fear alone — if proven beyond a reasonable doubt — can be enough for the State to win a conviction. This makes assault one of the most complex and misunderstood charges in our courts.
Recently, a Washington court decision, reviewed a case where the State relied almost entirely on fear and apprehension of harm, not physical injury, to prove assault. The decision shows how juries evaluate testimony, what counts as “sufficient evidence,” and why hiring an experienced Tacoma assault defense attorney is critical if you’ve been charged.
Key Facts of the Case
In October 2018, three women, including the driver and mother of the defendant’s children, were leaving an apartment complex when the defendant appeared unexpectedly. According to testimony, the defendant had repeatedly called the driver, causing her to panic. The women decided to leave the location because they feared for their safety, believing the defendant did not know where they were headed.
They entered a car with the driver behind the wheel, one passenger in the front seat, and the other in the rear middle seat. As the vehicle began to exit the complex, the defendant’s car suddenly appeared in front of them, nearly causing a collision. He exited his car and approached rapidly. Witnesses testified that his hand appeared to be on a firearm tucked into his waistband and that his demeanor was angry and aggressive.
He banged on the driver’s side window, prompting the driver to reverse and attempt to flee. At that moment, a gunshot shattered the driver’s side window. None of the occupants were struck, but all feared for their lives.
Law enforcement responded and gathered evidence, including a bullet casing and testimony. The State charged the defendant with one count of assault in the first degree, identified as domestic violence, against the driver, and two counts of assault in the second degree against the passengers. The court also instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of assault in the second degree for the driver’s charge.
At trial, one of the passengers testified extensively, corroborating the events. Ultimately, the jury convicted the defendant on three counts of assault in the second degree and found that he used a firearm in the commission of the offenses.
At sentencing, the trial court imposed 54 months of confinement and issued a 10-year domestic violence no-contact order prohibiting the defendant from contacting the driver. While the order did not directly mention the children of the relationship, one of them resided with the driver, and the other with the defendant’s sister. The defendant challenged this order, arguing that it interfered with his fundamental parental rights.
How Washington Defines Assault
Washington law recognizes multiple definitions of assault, including:
-
Actual physical injury, where someone is struck or harmed.
-
Acts intended to create fear of injury, even if no contact occurs.
Physical injury is not required if the act places another in actual apprehension of harm.
The jury instructions in this case defined assault as an act done with the intent to create fear of bodily injury, which in fact creates such fear. The defendant argued there was no proof he intended to place the passengers in fear or that they experienced actual fear.
Court’s Ruling on Sufficiency of Evidence
The defendant sought a new trial by arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for assault against the two passengers.
In Washington, sufficiency of the evidence is tested by asking whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational fact finder could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This deferential standard gives juries broad authority to determine credibility and weigh conflicting testimony.
The court rejected the defendant’s argument. Testimony showed the defendant aggressively confronted the vehicle, brandished a firearm, and fired into the driver’s window. The passengers were seated in clear view inside a small car without tinted windows. A rational jury could infer the defendant knew they were present, intended his actions to instill fear, and that they did, in fact, experience apprehension of harm.
The court emphasized that firing a gun into an occupied vehicle is a classic example of conduct that reasonably creates fear, even absent physical injury. Thus, the evidence was deemed sufficient to support the convictions for assault in the second degree.
What This Case Means for Defendants
This decision shows how a jury may accept testimony about fear alone as proof of assault. For anyone facing assault charges in Tacoma or Pierce County, the lesson is clear: these cases are not just about what happened, but about how the State presents fear and intent to the jury.
📞 If you are facing an assault charge, call Smith & White, PLLC, today at 253-203-1645 for a free consultation with a Tacoma assault defense lawyer.
Prosecutorial Misconduct Arguments
The defendant also argued that prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial. Specifically, he alleged the State improperly claimed he knew passengers were in the car but did not care, and that the firearm could not have discharged accidentally.
A prosecutor has wide latitude to argue reasonable inferences from evidence, but may not misstate the record or appeal solely to prejudice.
The court found no impropriety in these statements. Evidence supported the inference that the defendant knew of the passengers’ presence, including testimony that they were visible through the car’s windows and a recorded jail call where he speculated about “the other people in the car.”
Furthermore, testimony from officers established that modern Glock or 9-millimeter handguns cannot discharge without the trigger being pulled, supporting the State’s argument that the shooting was intentional rather than accidental. Because these claims were tied to the evidence, the State’s arguments were permissible, and no prejudice requiring a new trial was established.
Impact on No-Contact Orders and Parental Rights
The defendant also challenged the no-contact order on the grounds that it unlawfully infringed upon his fundamental right to parent his children.
Parents have a constitutional right to the care, custody, and companionship of their children, and conditions that affect these rights must be narrowly tailored and reasonably necessary to achieve state interests.
The order barred direct or indirect contact with the driver but allowed communication through attorneys or for the service of legal documents. Unlike cases where orders prevented even court- or counsel-mediated communication, this order permitted indirect contact.
The court emphasized that although it might create difficulties in arranging visitation or communication, inconvenience alone does not amount to a constitutional violation. Thus, the order was upheld as a lawful and reasonable restriction to protect the safety of the victim while still leaving avenues for the defendant to address parenting through the legal system.
Defending Against Assault Charges in Tacoma
If you are charged with assault in Tacoma, Pierce County, or the surrounding area, it is vital to understand your rights and the defenses available to you. At Smith & White, PLLC, our assault defense lawyers have more than 27 years of experience handling serious charges in Washington courts. We know how prosecutors frame cases, and we know how to challenge them.
📞 Call 253-203-1645 today to speak with a trusted Tacoma criminal defense attorney. Your consultation is free, and immediate action can make a difference in your case.