FILED
DECEMBER 13, 2018
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 35550-1-111
Respondent, )
)
V. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
J.A.A.,t )
)
)
Appellant.
LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. -J.A.A. appeals from a Yakima County Juvenile Court
adjudication of guilt and disposition order for fourth degree assault. He contends the
court erred in rejecting his self-defense claim, and the evidence was insufficient to
support the adjudication. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The State charged 17-year-old J.A.A. with fourth degree assault after he pushed
his mother during a confrontation at their residence.
t We have changed the case title in accordance with an amendment to RAP 3 .4
and the General Order for the Court of Appeals, In re Changes to Case Title (Wash. Ct.
App. 2018), both effective September 1, 2018.
No. 35550-1-III
State v. J.A.A.
The facts are summarized from testimony at the adjudication hearing. J.A.A.'s
mother testified that on the afternoon of July 6, 2017, she was awakened by her five-year-
old daughter who told her that J.A.A. was in the house. J.A.A. had spent the previous
night elsewhere and his mother told him that he was in trouble for going out without her
perm1ss1on. J.A.A. responded that he was moving out and was there to gather his
belongings. His mother was worried about marijuana use and who J .A.A. was
associating with. She told him that he could not leave the home. J .A.A. responded that
he was going to be with friends because he would be better off there, and she should just
let him because he was already 17 and could do whatever he wanted.
J .A.A.' s mother testified that she touched J .A.A's pants to try to search his pockets
as he gathered his belongings. He said she could not touch him and accused her of
"trying to rape him by touching his private parts." Report of Proceedings (RP) (Aug. 14,
2017, morning session) at 64-65. She then grabbed J.A.A. by the shirt to turn him toward
her and try to stop him from leaving. They stood face-to-face within arm's reach and
argued. J .A.A. called her a slob, a pig, and stupid. He placed his hands on her shoulders
and pushed her backward. This caused her to fall some four feet straight onto her back
side into pillows that were on the floor. She was not injured but immediately called
police. She went to the living room and J .A.A remained in the bedroom gathering his
clothes until officers arrived 10 minutes later. She testified that she and J .A.A had no
conversation in the interim.
2
No. 35550-1-III
State v. JA.A.
J .A.A. testified on his own behalf. He admitted to pushing his mother but claimed
self-defense. He testified that on the previous evening (July 5) he was sitting in her car
using a tablet and talking to friends. She ordered him to get out of the car but he refused.
He tried to lock the car because he feared she would hit him as he claimed she had done
on previous occasions, but that she got into the car and aggressively grabbed and
scratched him. He said she chased him through the house and hit him with a cable,
leaving scratches and marks, and then kicked him out of the house.
J .A.A. further testified that his mother was angry and yelling at him when he
returned on July 6 to pack up his clothes. But he denied that she tried to check his
pockets; he said it never happened. He admitted to insulting her and pushing her down
with both hands when she grabbed his shirt. He said it was an "instant reaction" because
he feared she would hit him like she had on the previous day and "[p ]lenty of times"
before. RP (Aug. 14, 2017, morning session) at 84, 88. He estimated that he stood seven
inches taller than her. He did not show the police any marks on his body and admittedly
had none at the time of the adjudication hearing. Nor did he report the July 5 incident or
any prior alleged incident to police or Child Protective Services. J .A.A. also testified that
prior to police arriving, his mother grabbed him and said he was not going anywhere, and
then pushed him down into a chair in the living room.
3
No. 35550-1-III
State v. JA.A.
In its written finding of fact 14, the court found J.A.A.' s claim of self-defense not
credible. The court also ruled in conclusion of law 4 that the State proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that J .A.A.' s use of force against his mother was not lawful. The court
found J .A.A. guilty of fourth degree assault beyond a reasonable doubt.
J.A.A. appeals.
ANALYSIS
J.A.A. argues the evidence was insufficient to support his adjudication of guilt for
fourth degree assault. As the basis for his argument, he contends the court's finding of
fact 14 that his claim of self-defense was not credible is not supported by substantial
evidence, and that the court erred in its conclusion of law 4 that the State proved beyond
a reasonable doubt that his use of force against his mother was not lawful. He concludes
that because the State did not disprove that he acted in self-defense, the elements of
assault are not met and the adjudication of guilt must be vacated and the charge
dismissed. We disagree.
Due process requires the State to prove every element of the crime charged
beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Baeza, 100 Wn.2d 487,488, 670 P.2d 646 (1983).
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence and all
reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the State to determine whether any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P .2d 628 ( 1980) (plurality
4
No. 35550-1-III
State v. JA.A.
opinion). A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all
reasonable inferences that a trier of fact can draw from the evidence. State v. Salinas,
119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P .2d 1068 ( 1992). We defer to the trier of fact on issues of
conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence.
State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P .2d 850 (1990). The court's findings of fact
following a juvenile adjudication will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence,
which is "' evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the
asserted premise."' State v. C.B., 195 Wn. App. 528, 535, 380 P.3d 626 (2016) (quoting
State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102, 106, 330 P.3d 182 (2014)).
Under RCW 9A.36.041(1), "[a] person is guilty of assault in the fourth degree, if,
under circumstances not amounting to assault in the first, second, or third degree, or
custodial assault, he or she assaults another." "Assault is an intentional touching or
striking of another person that is harmful or offensive, regardless of whether it results in
physical injury." State v. Tyler, 138 Wn. App. 120, 130, 155 P.3d 1002 (2007).
With regard to self-defense, "[t]he use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or
toward the person of another is not unlawful ... [w ]henever used by a party about to be
injured, or ... in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person,
... in case the force is not more than is necessary." RCW 9A.16.020. The right to raise
5
No. 35550-1-III
State v. JA.A.
a self-defense claim extends to a child whose parent admits to use of force as parental
discipline. State v. Graves, 97 Wn. App. 55, 62-63, 982 P.2d 627 (1999). 1
But to raise a claim of self-defense, the defendant must first offer credible
evidence tending to prove self-defense. Id. at 61. The burden then shifts to the State to
prove absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 61-62. "' To establish
self-defense, a defendant must produce evidence showing that he or she had a good faith
belief in the necessity of force and that that belief was objectively reasonable.'" Id. at 62
(quoting State v. Dyson, 90 Wn. App. 433, 438-39, 952 P.2d 1097 (1997)). "Evidence of
self-defense is viewed 'from the standpoint of a reasonably prudent person, knowing all
the defendant knows and seeing all the defendant sees.'" Id. ( quoting State v. Janes, 121
Wn.2d 220, 238, 850 P.2d 495 (1993)).
J.A.A. contends he presented credible evidence of self-defense, as further
supported by his mother's testimony. He states that she escalated their argument by
initiating physical contact when trying to frisk his pant's pockets. But he testified that
she did not try to frisk his pockets, so he cannot now claim it contributed to a perceived
need for self-defense. The gist of his argument, then, is that in the moment his mother
1
Under RCW 9A.16. l 00, the "physical discipline of a child is not unlawful when
it is reasonable and moderate and is inflicted by a parent ... for purposes of restraining or
correcting the child." But the question whether a parent's use of force was reasonable is
a separate inquiry from whether the child was initially entitled to raise a claim of self-
defense. Graves, 97 Wn. App. at 62-63.
6
No. 35550-1-III
State v. JA.A.
grabbed his shirt-and in the context of the previous night's events where she yelled at
him, chased him through the house and hit him with a cable-he had a reasonable
subjective fear of imminent injury that caused him to react quickly and push her away
using no more force than was necessary. And then. she pushed him into the chair where
he sat until police arrived. In these circumstances, he concludes the State did not
disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense and the court erred in
concluding to the contrary. His arguments fail.
As stated in finding of fact 14, the court did not find J.A.A.'s self-defense claim
credible. In finding of fact 15, the court incorporated by reference its oral findings made
on the record. In its oral ruling, the court expressly found J.A.A. not credible and
characterized him as a young man who has "pushed his mother to the absolute limit, not
following her rules, choosing to freelance on his own whenever he feels like it." RP
(Aug. 14, 2017, afternoon session) at 106. The court found there was not "anything from
the testimony that there would be credible evidence to prove the need for self-defense,
and certainly the absence of it would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt-I
don't even think you reach the beyond a reasonable doubt with the testimony." Id.
Given the lack of visible injuries, the court disbelieved J .A.A.' s account of his mother
beating him with a cable. The court stated that from J.A.A.'s own testimony, it did not
find he had a good faith belief in the necessity of force that was objectively reasonable.
In rejecting J.A.A. 's self-defense claim, the court stated it could not "find that this would
7
No. 35550-1-III
State v. JA.A.
have been a lawful use of force but in fact was an intentional act, when his mother is
attempting to turn him around, to keep him from leaving. He pushed her down." Id. at
107.
As discussed, credibility determinations and the weight and persuasiveness of the
evidence are the sole province of the trier of fact. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d at 71.
Accordingly, we do not disturb the court's finding of fact 14 and incorporated oral
findings that J.A.A. did not raise a credible claim of self-defense. In turn, the court's
written and oral findings also support its conclusion of law 4 that the State proved beyond
a reasonable doubt that J .A.A.' s use of force against his mother in response to her
grabbing his shirt was not lawful.
Absent self-defense, the evidence was sufficient for the court to find J .A.A.
guilty of fourth degree assault beyond a reasonable doubt for pushing his mother.
RCW 9A.36.041 (1 ); Green, 94 Wn.2d at 221.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.
2J-,Q-
Pennell, J.
8