State of Washington v. C.V.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: June 5, 2025
• Docket: 40355-6
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED JUNE 5 , 2025 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STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 40355-6-III ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) C.V. † ) ) Appellant. )

LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — The juvenile court adjudicated C.V. 1 guilty of four

counts of assault in the fourth degree. C.V. challenges two of these convictions and

argues the State presented insufficient evidence that he intended to hit his brother or his

sister with the front door as he yanked it open. We agree, and reverse and remand to

dismiss both assault convictions with prejudice.

FACTS

C.V. was in his room arguing with his stepmother when his father entered. C.V.

became angry with his father and punched him a couple times, including in his kidney.

Injured, his father retreated down the hallway and outside through the front door.

† 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. 1 There are a number of minors involved in this dispute. We refer to them by their initials to protect their privacy. No. 40355-6-III State v. C.V.

C.V. pursued his father, but his stepmother, brother R.P., and sister A.V.,

attempted to stop him. In the process, C.V. hit his stepmother in the stomach.

As C.V. approached the front door, R.P. tried to hold the door shut, but because

one of his arms was in a cast, he was unable to hold the door closed for long. R.P.

extended his casted arm to protect his sister’s head from being hit by the door as C.V.

yanked it open. However, the door hit both R.P.’s casted arm and A.V.’s head.

C.V. then began repeatedly punching his injured father. C.V.’s stepmother

pleaded for him to stop, saying she had 911 on the phone. As the ambulance approached,

C.V. ran away.

By amended information, the State charged C.V. with four counts of fourth degree

assault. The State presented the testimonies of the father, the stepmother, the brother, and

the sister. In closing, the prosecutor argued that C.V. assaulted his two siblings when

C.V. yanked the door open. After hearing the evidence, the juvenile court entered an

adjudication of guilty as to each of the four charges.

C.V. appeals to this court.

ANALYSIS

C.V. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his assault convictions

against R.P. and A.V. He argues the State presented insufficient evidence that he

intended the door to hit his brother’s extended arm or his sister’s head. We agree.

2 No. 40355-6-III State v. C.V.

Standard of review

We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for whether, after viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Davis, 182

Wn.2d 222, 227, 340 P.3d 820 (2014). “An appellant claiming insufficiency of the

evidence admits the truth of the State’s evidence and all inferences reasonably drawn

from it.” State v. Jarvis, 160 Wn. App. 111, 119, 246 P.3d 1280 (2011).

Fourth degree assault

“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.” RCW 9A.36.041(1). Although the statute does not define “assault,”

the common law does. “‘Assault is an intentional touching or striking of another person

that is harmful or offensive, regardless of whether it results in physical injury.’” Jarvis,

160 Wn. App. at 119 (quoting State v. Tyler, 138 Wn. App. 120, 130, 155 P.3d 1002

(2007)). “In Washington, the common law definition of ‘assault’ encompasses ‘(1) an

attempt, with unlawful force, to inflict bodily injury upon another; (2) an unlawful

touching with criminal intent; and (3) putting another in apprehension of harm whether or

not the actor intends to inflict or is capable of inflicting that harm.’” Jarvis, 160 Wn.

App. at 117-18 (footnote omitted) (quoting State v. Walden, 67 Wn. App. 891, 893-94,

3 No. 40355-6-III State v. C.V.

841 P.2d 81 (1992)). A touching is unlawful when it was neither legally consented to nor

otherwise privileged, and it was harmful or offensive. Id. at 118. “[T]he intent required

for assault is merely the intent to make physical contact with the victim, not the intent

that the contact be a malicious or criminal act.” Id. at 119.

Three family members testified about the two challenged assaults—C.V.’s

stepmother, his brother, and his sister. His stepmother provided the most complete

description of what happened. According to her: “[R.P.] was holding [the door], but he

had a broken arm, and then [C.V.] slammed the door open and hit his sister in the head

with it.” Rep. of Proc. at 79. The stepmother clarified she was not inside but was outside

holding the door until she let go to call 911.

R.P. testified he had extended his casted arm to protect his sister’s head from

being hit by the door. A.V. testified she believed C.V. did not intend to hit her head with

the door.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that no rational trier

of fact could have found the required element of intent against either sibling proved

beyond a reasonable doubt. The State presented no evidence to support a reasonable

inference that C.V. intended for the door to hit his brother’s extended arm or that C.V.

intended for the door to hit his sister’s head. The only reasonable inference of C.V.’s

intent was his intent to yank open the door so he could continue attacking his father.

4 No. 40355-6-III State v. C.V.

We reverse and remand for the trial court to dismiss the two assault convictions

with prejudice.

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.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________ _________________________________ Staab, J. Cooney, J.