IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

EDUARDO IBARRA VALENCIA,

Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 38785-2-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FEARING, C.J. — After a bench trial, the superior court adjudged Eduardo Ibarra 

Valencia guilty of one count of first degree murder and one count of first degree 

attempted murder. On appeal, he assigns error to the superior court’s rejection of his 

insanity defense. He insists he proved by a preponderance of evidence that he could not 

tell right from wrong when he committed the crimes. Because a reasonable trier of fact 

could have concluded that Valencia knew right from wrong or at least knew that his 

shootings were illegal, we affirm the two convictions. 

FACTS

Eduardo Ibarra Valencia concedes he killed one man and tried to kill another man

at his place of employment on November 20, 2015. The appeal centers around 

FILED

JUNE 13, 2023

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals Division III
No. 38785-2-III

State v. Valencia

2

Valencia’s defense of insanity. We refer to the appellant with the surname of Valencia, 

his chosen last name in his brief. 

Eduardo Ibarra Valencia struggled with anxiety, depression, and paranoia. He 

often believed his girlfriend, Alma Mireles, and their three children were in danger of 

being murdered or abducted. After learning about his brother’s murder in 2013 in 

Mexico, Valencia’s anxiety, depression, and paranoia worsened, and his belief of danger 

intensified. 

Eduardo Valencia worked as a welder at Callahan Manufacturing in Royal City. 

He thought the Michoacan cartel murdered his brother and believed his coworkers at 

Callahan Manufacturing, because of a purported connection to the cartel, threatened his 

safety. 

In February 2015, Eduardo Ibarra Valencia hung a rope from the roof of his 

home’s garage for the purpose of hanging himself. Alma Mireles successfully talked him 

out of his plan by reminding him that the couple enjoyed a wonderful life with their three 

children. The next day, Valencia exhibited strange behavior, which caused Mireles to 

call the police. Valencia underwent a mental health evaluation at the Quincy Medical 

Clinic. A physician at the clinic prescribed him medications. Valencia ceased taking the 

medications in August 2015, due to a belief that they did not help. 

Beginning in July 2015, Eduardo Ibarra Valencia’s coworkers at Callahan 

Manufacturing noticed a deterioration in his behavior. Valencia, previously a friend to 
No. 38785-2-III

State v. Valencia

3

coworkers, was now “distant,” “angry,” “acting crazy,” and “always upset.” Report of 

Proceedings (RP) at 465, 482, 690, 750. He daily threatened and yelled at coworkers. 

One time, when a few of his coworkers conversed, he snapped and told them to cease 

speaking about him or else he would “beat the shit out of [them].” RP at 483. He told 

coworker Agustin Verduzco:

You’re an ungrateful old man because I helped you get work here 

and now you’re talking about me. Why don’t you tell me to my face what 

you want to say?

 

RP at 464. Valencia’s behavior frightened his coworkers. Valencia often complained 

about problems he was having with his coworkers to Alma Mireles, but did not identify 

reasons for these problems. 

In October 2015, Alma Mireles discovered a disassembled semi-automatic pistol 

in one of Eduardo Ibarra Valencia’s dresser drawers. She wrapped the gun in a shirt to 

conceal it from their children. When she asked Valencia his reason for having the 

firearm, he replied that he acquired it to protect their family because of the many others 

wishing to harm them. In the middle of November 2015, Valencia showed the gun to

Miguel Abarca, a coworker with whom he had a friendship, but did not inform him of his 

reason for purchasing it. 

On November 19, 2015, Eduardo Ibarra Valencia approached coworkers Gustavo 

Lopez and Agustin Verduzco at work. He asked Lopez why they laughed at him. Lopez
No. 38785-2-III

State v. Valencia

4

denied that the two laughed at Valencia and explained that the two lacked any ill will 

toward Valencia. 

According to Alma Mireles, Eduardo Ibarra Valencia’s paranoia increased to an 

extreme level on November 19. During that evening, Valencia told Christopher, the 

couple’s oldest child, that “no matter what, he loves [Christopher and his] three siblings 

so much and that [they] mean the world to him.” RP at 343. Valencia further told 

Christopher to care for his siblings and help his mother. Valencia drank coffee all night 

and slept at most two hours. 

Around 5:00 on the morning of November 20, 2015, Eduardo Ibarra Valencia 

asked Alma Mireles for his gun. He did not volunteer his reason for desiring the gun. 

Mireles complied and gave him the disassembled gun. Valencia showered, dressed, and 

went to work. Valencia returned home around 7:00 a.m. and requested to speak with the 

children. Mireles denied his request because Valencia looked like he had been crying. 

She left the room they were in to grab a sweater for one of the children, and, when she 

returned, Valencia was gone from the home. 

Eduardo Ibarra Valencia returned to work but did not punch the time clock. When 

coworker Frederico Rodriguez (Frederico) arrived at work, Valencia approached his 

truck, insulted him, showed him the pistol, and said “I got something here to kill all you 

fuckers.” RP at 725. Valencia declared that he “had enough there for all of [them].” RP 

at 730. Irvin Dean Callahan, the owner of Callahan Manufacturing, arrived to work and 
No. 38785-2-III

State v. Valencia

5

saw Frederico, Frederico’s brother Joel Rodriguez (Joel), and Valencia conversing 

outside. Joel also worked at Callahan Manufacturing. Frederico waved Callahan over to 

join the conversation and reported to Callahan that Valencia possessed a pistol and had 

threatened Frederico. Valencia three times told Frederico and Joel to “‘[t]ell the truth.’” 

Valencia grew more agitated each time he repeated the words. RP 350. Because much of 

the conversation was in Spanish, Callahan told the men to separate, and he walked to an 

adjacent car wash to retrieve his bi-lingual son-in-law, Paul, to translate. 

After distancing himself from Eduardo Ibarra Valencia, Frederico Rodriguez 

asked coworker Juan Silva to take him to city hall to report Valencia’s threats. As Silva 

and Frederico left, Valencia walked toward them. Valencia suddenly changed course, 

walked away from Silva and Frederico, and proceeded toward the shop wherein Joel 

Rodriguez had entered. When Valencia located Joel, he, from behind a truck, repeatedly 

shot at Joel until Joel fell to the ground by the truck. After shooting Joel, Valencia 

walked to Joel’s side of the truck and shot toward coworker Agustin Verduzco. 

Verduzco ran from Valencia, who chased him, shot at him at least twice, and yelled 

“‘[n]ow you too.’” RP at 456. More than one bullet struck Verduzco. After shooting 

Joel and Verduzco, Valencia stowed the gun in his jacket pocket and left the shop. 

One hour after committing the shootings, Eduardo Ibarra Valencia returned home. 

He told Alma Mireles to call the police because he “messed up” and had killed someone. 
No. 38785-2-III

State v. Valencia

6

RP at 292. Mireles removed their daughter from the house and returned to hear Valencia 

on the phone with law enforcement. Valencia also pled with Mireles:

Tell the children that I love them very much. . . . Because I had no 

choice. They wouldn’t leave me alone. 

. . . Because, dear, they wouldn’t leave me alone, everything I told 

you is true, it’s true, it’s true, I swear to you, it’s true, and everything I’m 

telling, all of it happened, it’s true, it’s not a lie.

RP at 889. 

Agustin Verduzco was treated for the multiple gunshot wounds and underwent 

life-saving surgery. Joel Rodriguez died immediately from gun wounds. 

PROCEDURE

The State of Washington charged Eduardo Ibarra Valencia with one count of first 

degree premeditated murder with a deadly weapon and one count of attempted first 

degree premeditated murder with a deadly weapon. 

Eduardo Ibarra Valencia hired forensic neuropsychologist Kenneth Muscatel to 

assist in his defense. Dr. Muscatel examined Valencia twice in 2016. Through these 

examinations, Muscatel concluded that Valencia suffered from acute paranoia, a mood 

disorder, and a delusional disorder. Valencia saw threats where there were no threats. 

According to Muscatel, Valencia believed that his coworkers sought to kill him and his 

family. 

During a bench trial, Dr. Kenneth Muscatel testified to the description of events 

shared with him by Eduardo Ibarra Valencia: 
No. 38785-2-III

State v. Valencia

7

A. Well, it goes back a ways. So he felt that he was—other people 

were—there were threats being made to him by people at work. You have 

to go back and his brother had been killed in Michoacan, and this seemed 

to cause a change in his thinking and behavior.

Q. Why do you say that?

A. Well, because he described that he started to feel like people—

felt like he was being watched and monitored. It seems to have been dated 

in time largely to his brother’s death. This is just information that he 

provided to me and a sense that I got. But he felt like there were people in 

this area that were connected to folks in Michoacan. He specifically related 

to the cartel, the drug cartel where he came from, and that this was 

connected with his brother’s death, and this is also somehow connected 

with people up here.

Q. Did he describe feelings of paranoia to you? I mean you touched 

on it before, but I didn’t quite ask you in that way. And paranoia from his 

co-workers?

A. He felt threatened and he seemingly would impute potentially 

violent motives to statements that might otherwise seem fairly innocent or 

innocuous, like he’s going to be gone as opposed to I’m going to kill this 

guy, a direct threat. So this is an invocation, but this is what he described 

to me.

Q. Did he tell you that he felt that those threats arose to a level 

where he thought that others would kill him?

A. He expressed feeling very threatened and that when they made 

those threats, they meant that they were going to kill him. That’s what he 

communicated to me.

. . . .

Q. Now, I want you to assume—we’re here on the second week of 

trial—that there has been testimony that there have been no threats to him 

or made to him in a manner that would suggest any harm.

A. That’s a question or—

Q. Well, yes, I’d like you to assume that for the purposes of this 

question.

A. Okay.

Q. If that is such the case, how does—does that affect your opinion 

with respect to his paranoia?

A. Yeah. Paranoia is misperceiving or misreading or misappreciating stimuli in the environment. So you see threat where there’s no 

threat. That is what the definition of what paranoia is. It rises to a more 
No. 38785-2-III

State v. Valencia

8

fixed set of beliefs, that of a threatening nature, sometimes not threatening, 

but usually threatening, that’s a delusional system, that’s a fixed set of 

beliefs that are not in touch with reality, but the person believes them. 

That is the part of a delusional disorder, it’s also part of an acute 

paranoid state. And so the key is are these beliefs based in reality? I mean 

this is as the old joke goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean 

they’re not out to hurt you. Okay? 

So you have to determine, first, was there any threatening behavior, 

was there any harm done, was there anything that a rational person would 

understand and accept as threatening behavior? And the answer is no, then 

that raises the hypothesis that it’s paranoia at work.

Q. And in this case you have reviewed a number of interviews from 

individuals that were co-workers, correct?

A. Correct. And those interviews were provided after I authored my 

report and my two addendums.

Q. Right. And in your review of those reports, did anybody indicate 

from Callahan Manufacturing, Joel Rodriguez, Agustin Verduzco, Gustavo, 

was there anybody that said Mr. Ibarra Valencia was being threatened in a 

manner which he relayed to you?

A. No, not at all. He described feeling like he was being bullied and 

that people were making threats to him, that he’s fearful. He described very 

specific things being done to him that were unwarranted, but also somehow 

connected to his brother’s death, in his mind. And this is what he described 

to me as being believed, would be believed by him and motivating his 

behavior, and none of these other records indicate any such behavior was 

being done to him.

Q. Do you have an opinion based off of the information that you 

reviewed whether Mr. Ibarra Valencia’s perceptions of threats from his coworkers were delusional or not?

A. They were certainly paranoia and potentially delusional; that is, 

that he would hear things and interpret statements and looks and gestures 

that were derisive—he was feeling bad, this is all, by the way, the rational 

and irrational are not necessarily separate. So things can be mixed together. 

So he believed that he was—they are discounting him. He also believed 

that people were making more money than he was and he was working 

harder than them.

Q. But you would agree that at least his perceptions, based off the 

information that you’ve reviewed, his perceptions of the threats themselves, 

those were delusional in nature?
No. 38785-2-III

State v. Valencia

9

A. Yes, I would agree with that.

. . . .

Q. All right. We’ll get to your diagnosis in a bit. We’ll talk about 

that some more. But did you ask him why he brought the gun to work or 

why he brought a gun to work?

A. He said that he felt threatened, but also that he felt safer with a 

gun. So my understanding, that was the implication. But he also had 

maybe some expectation that things were going to go badly.

. . . .

A. . . . He said that he took the gun to work because they said—

because they said that they were going to kill him or wanted to kill him. He 

said that they were always bragging that they had weapons and one guy 

even had a permit for a weapon. This is stuff that he said to me 

specifically. And that the individual had a weapon, one individual had a 

weapon in his car, and always talking about fire power. In other words, he 

was describing this, the work environment, as a threatening environment, is 

what he said to me.

Q. Did he indicate to you that on November 20th, 2015, he was 

perceiving those same types of threats from co-workers?

A. Yeah.

Q. And if you could explain that to the court, because we’re getting 

a little bit more fact specific here.

A. The level of threats that he was describing [to] me were ongoing. 

They didn’t seem to ebb and flow. I’m not a witness to it, but this is what 

he described to me.

Q. Okay. Now, the victim in this case—the deceased in this case is 

Joel Rodriguez.

A. Yes.

Q. And one of the victims of the shooting is Agustin Verduzco.

A. Yes.

Q. Did you inquire of him and did he explain to you specific 

paranoia with respect to Joel Rodriguez or Agustin Verduzco? 

A. He talked about feeling threatened by the people in general. He 

didn’t name so and so did this and so and so did that. Again, you may be 

referring to something—I didn’t put the names in my report.

Q. Right.

. . . .

Q. . . . Did he explain to you what caused him to begin shooting that 

day? And if you would like—
No. 38785-2-III

State v. Valencia

10

. . . .

A. Yeah, we talked—you know, I asked him that. Yeah, he did say 

that he shot the individual because they were threatening him and he was 

saying, here I am, come for me. Again, he said they were afraid of him 

because they realized he was no longer afraid of them in terms of like I’m

not going to be bullied, that was my interpretation.

Q. Was there anything to suggest that in your interview with Mr. 

Ibarra Valencia that his shooting, the act of shooting began spontaneously 

for him?

A. Yeah, he did actually call it all of a sudden he got very upset and 

everything, all the bullying and all the abuse came up for him, and that’s 

when he started to pull out the gun and started shooting.

Q. All right. So from a psychological standpoint, how do you 

interpret that?

A. His, it was an impulsive act by his description. In other words, 

he’s saying, I didn’t bring the gun, that I had a plan in mind, but rather that 

he pulled the gun out when he got— all of a sudden he got upset by all of 

the history of abuse and acted impulsively, that’s what it suggested.

RP at 807-16. 

During trial, Dr. Kenneth Muscatel relayed that Eduardo Ibarra Valencia explained 

to him that he did not report the alleged workplace threats and bullying to his boss or to 

police because “he was not a snitch.” RP at 848. 

During trial testimony, neuropsychologist Kenneth Muscatel explained the 

relationship between Eduardo Ibarra Valencia’s mood and delusional disorders and the 

shootings of Agustin Verduzco and Joel Rodriguez: 

Q. Right. So on a more probable than not basis, do you believe that 

Mr. Ibarra Valencia’s delusional disorder affected his ability to appreciate 

wrong from right on the day of the shooting on November 20—November 

20th, 2015?

A. Yeah, I do. But this was a very difficult—this was a very 

difficult determination.
No. 38785-2-III

State v. Valencia

11

Q. Well, why do you say that you do believe that it did affect his 

ability to appreciate right from wrong?

A. Because he felt—he apparently believed that he was not only 

being harassed and being ridiculed and being treated badly by his coworkers, but that they were—they represented a threat to his life, and 

perhaps to his family, as well. And therefore, he acted based upon that 

belief. 

Now, I also say in my report, he did not indicate that there was an 

imminent threat. In other words, that he saw no weapon, he saw no 

imminent threat to him at that time. That’s why I struggled so much with 

this.

. . . .

A. But it’s still very difficult. He didn’t believe that these 

individuals presented an immediate risk to him, but more of a generalized 

risk. And that’s what I’ve been struggling with. And that’s why it took—I 

had three or four iterations on this record to try and hone my findings.

Q. Yes.

Do you believe at the time of the shooting there is evidence in the 

records that you have reviewed to suggest that he was psychotic at the time 

of the shooting?

A. That he was in the midst of a delusional disorder?

Yes.

RP at 821-23. 

The trial court asked Dr. Kenneth Muscatel to address Eduardo Ibarra Valencia’s 

ability to distinguish between right and wrong on the day of the shootings. Muscatel 

responded:

[Ibarra Valencia] knew that [shooting his coworkers] was not legal, 

first off. That’s very clear. In fact, I think he calls 911. He understood 

that.

 

RP at 827. 
No. 38785-2-III

State v. Valencia

12

The State called no expert to contradict the testimony of Kenneth Muscatel. The 

trial court concluded, in a written opinion, that Eduardo Ibarra Valencia:

was able to tell right from wrong regarding his acts of shooting Joel 

and Agustin. Even though his paranoid and delusional beliefs convinced 

him his coworkers were a threat, he knew the threat was not imminent. 

Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 241. The trial court also concluded that Valencia:

knew shooting his coworkers was wrong and would have legal 

consequences. He knew shooting them would cause him to be separated 

from his family and that he would be arrested and put in jail.

 

CP at 241. 

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Eduardo Ibarra Valencia assigns error solely to the trial court’s rejection of his 

insanity defense. He contends the trial court ignored overwhelming evidence of insanity. 

He argues that the evidence he submitted at trial contradicts the trial court’s finding that 

he “knew shooting his coworkers was wrong and would have legal consequences” when 

he committed the crimes. CP at 241. He emphasizes that the State failed to present any 

expert testimony rebutting the opinions of Dr. Kenneth Muscatel. 

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence when a defendant bears the 

burden of proving an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, we assess 

whether, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier 

of fact could have found that the defendant failed to prove the defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence. State v. Lively, 130 Wn.2d 1, 17, 921 P.2d 1035 (1996). 
No. 38785-2-III

State v. Valencia

13

Whether the evidence is credible and whether it amounts to proof by a preponderance lies 

with the trier of fact. State v. Arbogast, 199 Wn.2d 356, 372, 506 P.3d 1238 (2022). The 

trier of fact, not the appellate court, weighs the evidence. State v. Crossguns, 199 Wn.2d 

282, 297, 505 P.3d 529 (2022). 

Washington recognizes a presumption that a defendant is sane. State v. Matthews, 

132 Wn. App. 936, 938, 135 P.3d 495 (2006). Nevertheless, the law does not wish to 

punish someone whose loss of reality places him beyond the influence of the criminal 

law. State v. White, 60 Wn.2d 551, 590, 374 P.2d 942 (1962). 

“Insanity is a defense which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of 

the evidence.” RCW 10.77.030(2); See RCW 9A.12.010(2). Insanity is a defense that 

completely absolves a defendant of criminal liability. State v. Crenshaw, 98 Wn.2d 789, 

793, 659 P.2d 488 (1983). 

To demonstrate insanity, the M’Naghten test, codified at RCW 9A.12.010, 

provides that a defendant must show the following:

[a]t the time of the commission of the offense, as a result of mental 

disease or defect, the mind of the actor was affected to such an extent that:

(a) He or she was unable to perceive the nature and quality of the act 

with which he or she is charged; or

(b) He or she was unable to tell right from wrong with reference to 

the particular act charged.

RCW 9A.12.010(1); State v. Wheaton, 121 Wn.2d 347, 354, 850 P.2d 507 (1993). 
No. 38785-2-III

State v. Valencia

14

Under the M’Naghten test, an individual is unable to tell right from wrong with 

reference to the particular act charged, if, at the time of commission of the offense, he is 

unable to tell that his act is one which he “ought not to do.” State v. Crenshaw, 27 Wn. 

App. 326, 338, 617 P.2d 1041 (1980), aff’d, 98 Wn.2d 789, 659 P.2d 288 (1983);

M’Naghten’s Case, 10 Clark & Fin. 200, 210, 8 Eng. Rep. 718, 722 (H.L. 1843). The 

accused cannot be excused, under the insanity defense, if he or she knew his or her act 

was either legally or morally wrong. State v. Crenshaw, 27 Wn. App. 326, 338-39 

(1980). 

Dr. Kenneth Muscatel determined Eduardo Ibarra Valencia suffered from a mood 

disorder and a delusional disorder. Muscatel opined that Valencia was delusional at the 

time of the shooting and thereby unable to distinguish between right and wrong. Still 

Muscatel conceded that Valencia did not consider his coworkers an immediate threat to 

his life or to his family members’ lives. More importantly, he admitted difficulty in 

reaching his opinion. 

The superior court was not bound by the opinion of Kenneth Muscatel. The 

weight to be given an expert’s conclusion is left to the trier of fact. State v. Lord, 117 

Wn.2d 829, 854, 822 P.2d 177 (1991), abrogated on other grounds by State v.

Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 438 P.3d 1063 (2018). An expert’s opinion on a defendant’s 

sanity is not dispositive. State v. Mitchell, 102 Wn. App. 21, 27, 997 P.2d 373 (2000). 
No. 38785-2-III

State v. Valencia

15

The State presented sufficient evidence to refute Dr. Kenneth Muscatel’s opinion 

that Eduardo Ibarra Valencia could not distinguish between right and wrong at the time 

he committed the crimes. Muscatel averred that Valencia told him that Valencia 

addressed the threats and workplace bullying himself instead of reporting it to his boss or 

to law enforcement because “he was not a snitch.” RP at 848. Alma Mirales testified 

that Valencia requested to speak to their children before the shooting, told her to call the 

police because he killed someone when he arrived home after the shooting, and 

eventually called 911 himself. The State also elicited testimony from Christopher, who 

declared that his father told him “no matter what, he loves [Christopher and his] three 

siblings so much and that [they] mean the world to him” the day before the shootings. 

RP at 343. All of this testimony confirmed that Valencia knew right from wrong at the 

time of the shootings. 

Just as important, trial testimony showed that Eduardo Ibarra Valencia knew he 

engaged in legally wrong conduct. In response to questioning from the court, Dr. 

Kenneth Muscatel responded that “[Ibarra Valencia] knew that [shooting his coworkers] 

was not legal, first off. That’s very clear.” RP at 827. 

Eduardo Ibarra Valencia argues that the trial court wrongly concluded that he 

needed to deem his coworkers an imminent threat in order to qualify for the insanity 

defense. We agree with Valencia that a belief in an imminent threat lacks relevance to 

the question of insanity. Imminence is a factor to be considered when analyzing the 
No. 38785-2-III

State v. Valencia

16

affirmative defense of self-defense, but imminence is typically not considered when 

analyzing the sufficiency of an insanity defense. State v. Kelly, 102 Wn.2d 188, 198, 685 

P.2d 564 (1984). Nevertheless, the trial court never ruled that an immediate threat was 

essential to its finding. Instead, the trial court mentioned the lack of an immediate threat 

to address Valencia’s argument that he believed a threat to him and his family was 

imminent. 

CONCLUSION

We affirm Eduardo Ibarra Valencia’s convictions. 

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 

2.06.040.

_________________________________

Fearing, C.J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Pennell, J.

______________________________

Staab, J.