Opinion
No. 59437-1-I.
February 11, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 06-8-04071-8, Carol A. Schapira, J., entered December 12, 2006.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Ellington, J., concurred in by Agid and Cox, JJ.
Where a person uses unreasonable force in response to an offensive touching, her response cannot be justified as self-defense. Whether the offensive touching was a reasonable means of parental discipline is irrelevant. Alicia W. was convicted in juvenile court of assaulting her mother after her mother pulled her hair. Because there is sufficient evidence that Alicia did not act in self-defense, we affirm her conviction.
BACKGROUND
Seventeen-year-old Alicia W. and her mother Shelly had an argument, during which Shelly thought Alicia spit at her. Shelly verbally reprimanded Alicia. A physical altercation ensued, the details of which are disputed.
Shelly testified that her verbal reprimand was met with profanity. Alicia picked up the cordless phone and turned to leave, and Shelly grabbed Alicia's hair as a "restraint for the child that was being verbally defiant." Report of Proceedings (Dec. 22, 2006) at 29. Alicia turned and grabbed Shelly's arms, dug in her nails, and pushed Shelly backward, at which point Shelly let go of Alicia's hair. Alicia continued to push Shelly backward six to eight feet down the hall and tried to force her to the ground. Shelly's fiancé, Misi Fila, pulled Alicia off Shelly and Alicia ran out of the house. Shelly suffered bloody gouges, scratches, and bruises to her arms.
Alicia testified Shelly thought Alicia spit at her, so she grabbed Alicia's hair and hit her several times about the head with a closed fist. Alicia tried to push Shelly away to get free. She did not recall digging her fingernails into Shelly's arms. Alicia picked up the phone to call the police, but could not make the call during the scuffle. Alicia was eventually able to break free, but Shelly tackled her into a bedroom and continued to try to hit her while Alicia tried to get away. When Misi Fila intervened, he pulled Shelly off Alicia. Alicia jumped up and ran to the neighbors' house, where she described the events to the neighbors and called her boyfriend.
The police arrived, observed Shelly's injuries, and arrested Alicia.
The juvenile court found Alicia guilty of fourth degree assault (domestic violence). The court did not believe Shelly hit Alicia, and found Shelly grabbed Alicia's hair "in order to restrain her," which was "reasonable to get [Alicia's] attention." Clerk's Papers at 18, 19. The court found that Alicia then grabbed Shelly's arms, caused gouges in Shelly's skin with her nails, and tried to push Shelly down. The court concluded Alicia was not acting in self-defense:
The reaction by the [r]espondent was not defense, but an
unreasonable use of force while angry. This was not a case where the respondent was simply trying to get away from her mother. The court believed that the respondent intentionally chose to dig her nails into her mother's arms, not out of fear of what her mother would do to her, but simply because she could.
Clerk's Papers at 19.
Alicia appeals.
DISCUSSION
Alicia contends the State presented insufficient evidence to prove she did not act in self-defense. Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, it allows any rational trier of fact to find all of the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn from it. State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 222, 616 P.2d 628 (1980).
Whether Alicia acted in self-defense depends upon whether she acted in response to an offense against her person and whether she used only as much force as necessary in response. Pulling another's hair ordinarily would be considered an offense against her person for self-defense purposes. The parties assume, however, that would not be the case if hair-pulling is reasonable under the parental discipline statute, RCW 9A.16.100.
Because RCW 9A.16.100 describes a defense for parents accused of unlawfully assaulting their children, it is not applicable here. Further, it is not necessary to consider whether Shelly's conduct was reasonable. Rather, the question is whether Alicia's response was reasonable. Self-defense is available only when the force used "is not more than is necessary." RCW 9A.16.020(3); see also RCW 9A.16.010(1) ("that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended").
There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the court's finding that Alicia's use of force was unreasonable. Credibility is for the trial court to determine. State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990). Shelly testified she let go of Alicia's hair when Alicia began pushing her backwards, but Alicia continued to hold her arms and force her backward, desisting only when Misi Fila pulled her off. Alicia inflicted upon her mother various injuries. The court rejected Alicia's version of events, finding that "[t]his was not a case where the respondent was simply trying to get away from her mother." Clerk's Papers at 19.
There being sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings, we affirm.
FOR THE COURT: