State Of Washington v. Daryl Harding, 48408-1

Defendant Daryl Harding was charged with two counts of second-degree assault with a deadly weapon after swinging a three-foot two-by-two board with nails protruding ("spiked board") and striking two men (Stark and Jensen), puncturing Jensen’s finger and Stark’s forearm.
Incident followed prior verbal altercations and racial slurs; police had been called once earlier and left, and returned after the assaults.
Officer recovered the spiked board and testified the protruding nails posed substantial danger and could be fatal in some circumstances.
Harding admitted using the spiked board but asserted self-defense, claiming he was outnumbered and feared assault.
Trial court instructed on self-defense and, at the State’s request, gave a first- aggressor instruction; the court denied Harding’s requested inferior-degree instruction for fourth-degree assault.
Jury convicted Harding of both counts and made special findings that he was armed with a deadly weapon; Harding appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Harding)	Held
Whether evidence disproved self-defense	State: Evidence (attacks occurred when victims were exiting apartment; defendant returned armed and struck first) disproves reasonable belief of imminent harm	Harding: He was threatened, outnumbered, and reasonably feared assault; his testimony raised self-defense	Held: Evidence sufficient to disprove self-defense; convictions upheld
Whether spiked board was a deadly weapon	State: Circumstances (targeting heads, force used, injuries, officer testimony) show board was readily capable of death/ substantial harm	Harding: Board not shown to be readily capable of causing substantial harm (relies on weaker-weapon precedent)	Held: Under the circumstances, spiked board was a deadly weapon; special findings supported
Whether trial should have given inferior-degree (4th deg) assault instruction	State: No evidence the assaults occurred without the deadly weapon, so no factual basis for lesser offense instruction	Harding: Jury could have convicted of non-deadly assault (4th degree) instead	Held: Legal prong satisfied but factual prong not met; no instruction required; court did not err
Whether first- aggressor instruction was proper	State: Conflicting evidence about who provoked altercation and defendant made the first move by arming himself	Harding: His testimony showed defensive reaction, not provocation	Held: Instruction proper given conflicting evidence; no error

State v. Hosier, 157 Wn.2d 1 (discusses sufficiency review standard)
State v. Walden, 131 Wn.2d 469 (shifting burden once defendant offers some evidence of self-defense)
State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856 (self-defense elements and evaluation)
In re Pers. Restraint of Martinez, 171 Wn.2d 354 (distinguishing deadly weapons per se and in fact)
State v. Skenandore, 99 Wn. App. 494 (analysis of whether improvised spear was deadly weapon)
State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443 (test for entitlement to inferior-degree instruction)
State v. Riley, 137 Wn.2d 904 (when first-aggressor instruction is appropriate)
State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448 (standard for factual prong of inferior-degree instruction)