State Of Washington, V. K.d.p., 54317-6

K.D.P., a 15‑year‑old, went to a Battleground Walmart parking lot and told others he wanted to fight D.S.; D.S. arrived ~45 minutes later.
Before D.S. arrived, K.D.P. entered Walmart, purchased a 3.25‑inch folding hunting knife, removed it from packaging, and hid it on his person.
When D.S. and K.D.P. confronted each other they agreed to fight; many bystanders watched and encouraged both sides; the fight had multiple breaks and K.D.P. repeatedly re‑engaged.
Toward the end of the fight K.D.P. pulled the knife and cut D.S.’s torso (deep wound, bone involvement); D.S. was hospitalized; K.D.P. attempted to flee but was detained and arrested.
Juvenile court found D.S. credible, rejected K.D.P.’s self‑defense claim, concluded K.D.P. used a deadly weapon and recklessly inflicted great bodily harm, and adjudicated K.D.P. guilty of second‑degree assault.
On appeal K.D.P. challenged several findings as unsupported by substantial evidence and argued the State failed to disprove self‑defense; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	K.D.P.'s Argument	Held
Whether specific findings of fact (¶¶5,6,8,13) are supported by substantial evidence	Testimony and video corroborated timing, knife purchase, mutual fight, and bystander encouragement	Testimony conflicted; he lacked time/intent to prepare and acted defensively	Substantial evidence supports those findings; appellate review defers to trial credibility determinations
Whether court's factual findings support conclusions of law (including mislabeled findings)	Findings show premeditated preparation (knife purchase/ concealment) and mutual fight	Some conclusions mislabelled; but facts do not support self‑defense	Court treats mislabelled conclusions as findings; facts support conclusions of law
Whether State disproved self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt	K.D.P. armed himself in advance, re‑engaged repeatedly, used excessive force (knife) near fight end	K.D.P. reasonably feared for safety, was outnumbered/ cornered, pulled knife to de‑escalate and protect himself	Self‑defense rejected: both subjective and objective tests fail; use of knife was excessive and not reasonably necessary
Whether evidence supports adjudication of second‑degree assault	Evidence shows assault with deadly weapon causing great bodily harm and State disproved self‑defense	Relies on his testimony and Callahan to claim reasonableness	Adjudication affirmed; appeal relies on testimony trial court found not credible and Callahan is distinguishable

State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (2014) (standard of review: substantial evidence for findings; de novo review of conclusions of law)
State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821 (2004) (defer to trier of fact on credibility and conflicting testimony)
State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256 (2020) (once self‑defense is raised, burden shifts to State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Read, 147 Wn.2d 238 (2002) (subjective and objective tests for self‑defense)
State v. Walden, 131 Wn.2d 469 (1997) (amount of force judged by what reasonably appeared necessary to defendant)
State v. Werner, 170 Wn.2d 333 (2010) (use of reasonably prudent person standard in self‑defense analysis)
Callahan v. State, 87 Wn. App. 925 (1997) (displaying a weapon may support a self‑defense instruction depending on circumstances; facts here distinguishable)
Willener v. Sweeting, 107 Wn.2d 388 (1986) (a court’s mislabelled conclusion of law that is factual in nature is reviewed as a finding of fact)