Incidents that lead to Washington assault charges can often be hectic events with multiple people involved, especially if there are people trying to intervene. In a recent unpublished opinion, a juvenile challenged fourth degree assault convictions, arguing the state had failed to prove he intended to hit his siblings with a door.
The appeals court described the incident as follows. The juvenile was arguing with his stepmother in his room. His father came into the room and the juvenile got angry and punched him “a couple of times,” according to the appeals court’s opinion. The father went outside.
The juvenile followed, but other members of the family tried to stop him. He hit his stepmother in the stomach. His brother tried to hold the door closed. As the juvenile opened the door, it hit his brother’s arm and his sister’s head. The juvenile punched his father multiple times and his stepmother called 911. The juvenile fled before the ambulance arrived.
The state charged the juvenile with four counts of assault in the fourth degree. The state argued he had assaulted his brother and sister when he pulled the door open and it hit them. The court adjudicated him guilty of all four charges.
The juvenile appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support convictions for assault against his siblings and that the state had not presented sufficient evidence he intended to hit them with the door.
A person can be convicted of fourth degree assault if they “assault[] another” under circumstances that do not constitute first, second, or third degree assault or custodial assault. RCW 9A.36.041(1). The statute does not include a definition of assault, so courts must look to the common law definition. Assault includes an intent element requiring the defendant to intend physical contact, though they do not have to intend the contact be malicious. State v. Jarvis.
The juvenile’s stepmother, brother, and sister all testified about the alleged assaults. She testified that the brother had a broken arm and was trying to hold the door when the juvenile “slammed” it open and hit his sister. She said she had been outside holding the door.
The juvenile’s brother testified that he put his arm, which was in a cast, out to try to prevent his sister from getting hit by the door. The juvenile’s sister said she did not think the juvenile intended to hit her with the door.
The appeals court concluded a rational trier of fact could not find the element of intent had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt with regard to the alleged assault against either the brother or the sister. The state had not presented any evidence that would support a reasonable inference the juvenile intended to hit either sibling with the door. The appeals court further concluded the only reasonable inference of his intent was that he intended to open the door to go after his father.
The appeals court reversed the assault convictions relating to the siblings and remanded to the trial court to dismiss those two convictions with prejudice.
The state must prove all elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, including the intent element. In this case, the state failed to show that the juvenile intended for the door to hit his siblings. If your child is facing assault or other charges, a knowledgeable Seattle juvenile defense attorney can help you protect your child and their rights. Set up a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC at (206) 622-6562.