State Of Washington v. Brian Frank Alexander, 74015-6

On August 11, 2014, KC sustained substantial facial and other injuries after an incident in Brian Alexander’s car; she initially told witnesses and police Alexander had beaten her.
KC later wrote a recantation saying she had a panic attack, unbuckled, grabbed the steering wheel, hit the windshield and curb, and Alexander pulled her back by the neck to protect her.
The State charged Alexander with second degree assault (domestic violence). At trial KC testified consistent with her recantation that the injuries were accidental during a struggle to stop her from jumping out.
Defense theory: Alexander lawfully used force to protect KC (self/others) and alternatively to prevent malicious interference with his vehicle (property). The trial court refused the property-defense instruction.
The jury was instructed on self-defense and defense of others and convicted Alexander. He appealed, challenging (1) refusal to give the property-protection instruction, (2) admission of two 911 calls, and (3) officers’ testimony comparing injuries to punching vs. windshield impact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Alexander)	Held
Whether court erred by refusing instruction that force may be used to prevent malicious interference with property	No instruction warranted because evidence did not show KC acted with malice toward the car	KC’s grabbing the wheel was malicious interference with Alexander’s vehicle, supporting a property-defense instruction	No abuse of discretion; no evidence KC acted with malicious intent to harm the car and jury already had self-defense/defense-of-others instructions
Whether admission of two 911 calls was erroneous and prejudicial	Admission was permissible and, in any event, any error was not shown to be prejudicial	Admission of the 911 calls was hearsay and prejudicial	Issue not adequately preserved; live witness testimony was more damaging and no persuasive showing of prejudice
Whether officers improperly opined that injuries were consistent with punching rather than windshield impact	Officers’ testimony drew on training/experience about accident vs. assault patterns and did not testify to guilt	Such testimony improperly suggested defendant’s guilt by inference	No abuse of discretion; officers gave permissible injury-causation opinions and emergency physician’s testimony supported the same conclusion

State v. Werner, 170 Wn.2d 333 (2010) (defendant entitled to instruction on theory of case if supported by some evidence)
State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 767 (1998) (standard of review for refusal to give jury instructions: de novo if legal, abuse of discretion if factual)
State v. Olmedo, 112 Wn. App. 525 (2002) (witnesses may not testify to defendant’s guilt; limits on guilt-by-opinion testimony)