State Of Washington v. A.p., 49676-3

AP (juvenile) was convicted after a bench trial of second-degree assault for stabbing DF at a park during a confrontation in which DF and AP exchanged punches and DF had pushed AP’s girlfriend, Herrera.
AP claimed he acted in self-defense, testifying he feared DF would incapacitate him and that DF had previously threatened him; trial court excluded testimony about DF’s prior threats as hearsay.
The State argued AP was not fearful (he had approached the group) and that using a knife exceeded reasonable force.
The trial court found AP guilty, concluding the stabbing was retaliatory and excessive, and did not make detailed findings about what AP knew when he acted.
On appeal both parties agreed the exclusion of DF’s prior threats was erroneous; the issue became whether that constitutional error (right to present a defense) was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court of Appeals held the exclusion was not harmless because the prior-threat evidence was highly probative of AP’s subjective fear and the reasonableness of his use of force, and reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (AP)	Held
Whether excluding DF’s prior threats violated AP’s right to present a defense	Exclusion proper; AP wasn’t really afraid and the statements were hearsay	Excluded threats were offered to show effect on AP’s state of mind (not truth) and were admissible; exclusion barred AP’s defense	Exclusion was error that violated AP’s Sixth Amendment right (parties conceded error)
Whether error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Error harmless because AP’s use of a knife in a fistfight was clearly unreasonable; facts (AP approached group) undermine fear claim	Error prejudicial because prior threats were highly probative of AP’s subjective fear and the reasonableness of force	Error was not harmless; reversal and new trial ordered
Whether the trial court properly evaluated reasonableness of force without threat evidence	Trial facts alone (push, punches) show force exceeded what was reasonable	Prior threats necessary to evaluate what a reasonably prudent person knowing AP’s circumstances would do	Court: without the content of threats, a factfinder could not reliably assess reasonableness; evidence could have changed outcome
Whether appellate costs should be imposed	N/A (State conceded)	AP indigent; opposed costs	Court declined to impose appellate costs

State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713 (discussing constitutional right to present a defense)
State v. Watt, 160 Wn.2d 626 (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
State v. Walden, 131 Wn.2d 469 (defendant’s initial burden to produce some evidence of self-defense; subjective/objective analysis)
State v. Janes, 121 Wn.2d 220 (reasonable-force standard measured as conditions appear to defendant)
State v. Rice, 120 Wn.2d 549 (statements offered to show effect on listener not hearsay)
State v. Smith, 148 Wn.2d 122 (abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
State v. Cayetano-Jaimes, 190 Wn. App. 286 (exclusion of evidence prevented consideration of probative defense evidence)
State v. Head, 136 Wn.2d 619 (requirement for written findings of fact and conclusions of law)