Court Opinion

ID: 9898156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:28:50.127756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:29.011019
License: Public Domain

Filed
                                                                                       Washington State
                                                                                       Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Division Two

                                                                                        October 10, 2023

        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                            DIVISION II
    STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                              No. 56794-6-II

                                  Respondent,

            v.

    COREY DEAN NOBLE,                                           UNPUBLISHED OPINION

                                  Appellant.

           VELJACIC, J. — Corey Dean Noble appeals his conviction for assault in the second degree

by strangulation for choking his then 17-year-old daughter, B.N. He argues that the State failed to

present sufficient evidence to prove he had the requisite intent to strangle B.N. He also contends

that the State failed to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Because sufficient

evidence supports his conviction, we affirm.

                                                FACTS

I.         BACKGROUND

           After 17 years in the Army, where he completed combative training, Noble retired. He

lived at home with his wife, two biological daughters, and his stepson.

           In the early morning of July 15, 2021, Noble and his oldest daughter, B.N., got into a

physical altercation. The following day, the State charged Noble with one count of assault in the

second degree-domestic violence and one count of malicious mischief in the third degree-domestic

violence.1

1
     The State later voluntarily dismissed the malicious mischief charge.
56794-6-II

II.      JURY TRIAL

         On February 17, 2022, Noble’s jury trial began. The court heard testimony from physician

assistant Katherine Thompson, Dr. Lawrence Lavine, police officers John Cody White and Matt

Leitgeb, Noble’s wife Corina, his daughter B.N., adult stepson Dustin Miller, and Noble.2

         A.      B.N.’s Testimony

         B.N. testified that a month before the incident, she and Noble argued regarding her

schooling, which led to Noble breaking down her bedroom door. However, it did not get physical

between them.

         On the day of the altercation, B.N. testified that Noble seemed agitated and intoxicated.

Around 3:30 AM, B.N. left her room to use the restroom and noticed Noble in the other room. She

returned to her room, shut the door, and laid down. Shortly thereafter, she heard knocking at her

door, but she did not open it “[b]ecause it was 3:00 [in] [the] morning, and [she] wanted to go to

bed.” 2 Rep. of Proc. (RP) at 119. However, Noble continued hitting the door until it was “off of

its hinges” and “started to break.” 2 RP at 121. Noble did not stop, so B.N. grabbed a box cutter

she had next to her “[b]ecause [she] felt as if [she] was going to be in danger soon.” 2 RP at 121.

         After Noble stood in the doorway after breaking down the door, B.N. extended the box

cutter out and told him to back off, but Noble lunged at her instead. Fearing that she “would be

physically hurt,” she held the box cutter out in “an act of defense.” 2 RP at 123. B.N. stated she

did not see Noble get cut but noted it was reasonable to assume so, given that she saw the cuts

after the incident.

2
    To distinguish Corina from Noble, we use her first name. No disrespect is intended.

                                                 2
56794-6-II

       B.N. recalled that the box cutter landed under her desk as she and Noble wrestled to the

ground. Noble then dragged B.N. by her ankles and put her in a headlock with his body behind

her and with “one of his arms over [her] throat . . . [a]nd squeezing.” 2 RP at 124-25. B.N. tried

to speak, but it “was very difficult . . . and [she] struggled to breathe.” 2 RP at 125.

       As she tried to escape the headlock, Noble placed both of his hands around her throat “just

about where the Adam’s apple is” and “used his thumbs to cover [her] jugulars and press[ed] into

them” making her feel “pressure in [her] head,” which she described as “tunnel vision.” 2 RP at

126-27. B.N. described the pressure and pain on her throat as an eight out of ten. As Noble

continued to press his hands onto B.N.’s throat, her older brother Dustin appeared and she labored

out “call the police.” 2 RP at 127.

       After Noble left her room, B.N. and Dustin went to the kitchen. Dustin stood between

Noble and B.N. as B.N. reached for a knife from the rack immediately behind her, noting she was

“worried that [Noble] might try and hurt” them and needed to defend herself and her brother. 2

RP at 130.

       After the incident, B.N. talked with officers and showed her injuries, including blood on

her nose, redness, and scratches on her neck and arms. She told the police she felt “kind of angry

and full of dread and just generally shocked.” 2 RP at 128. The officers took photographs of her

injuries and some photographs that showed B.N. demonstrating how Noble placed his hands on

her neck.

       B.N.’s mother, Corina, took B.N. to the emergency room, where B.N. reported feeling

some underlying pain while attempting to swallow and occasionally when trying to speak. B.N.

stated that the hospital staff noticed small scrapes on her neck, but nothing severe enough to keep

                                                  3
56794-6-II

her for observation and they discharged her. However, when she returned home, she experienced

pain swallowing and a croaky, hoarse voice lasting for about a month.

       B.      Noble’s Testimony

       The jury heard from Noble, who recounted the altercation with conflicting facts. He

testified that, earlier that day, he was playing video games at his desk while eating dessert when

B.N. came out and started screaming at him, saying, “shut the F up.” 4 RP at 366. He then

followed her, saw her enter her room, knocked out of habit, and reached for the doorknob. And

as he did, the door slammed, trapping his left hand in the door. He tried to reach down to turn the

doorknob, but it was locked. He knocked and yelled “my hands stuck. Open the door,” with B.N.

responding, “Shut the F up and leave me alone.” 4 RP at 372. He knocked harder, but received

no response. He then punched a hole, through the wood veneer, by the doorknob to try and reach

inside in an attempt to free his hand. However, he could not, so he used his foot to kick the wooden

edge of the door frame until it broke, releasing his hand.

       He then made eye contact with B.N., who allegedly said, “I’ve had enough of this,” raising

the box cutter and charging toward him. 4 RP at 376-77. B.N. slashed Noble, but he threw his

hands out in front of him to protect his face and eyes.

       Noble then grabbed B.N. by the shoulders and walked her back to her bed, but B.N.

continued flailing and stabbed him in the chest. As B.N. struggled and began to strike him with

the box cutter, they slid to the ground, and Noble straddled her placing his arm on her shoulder to

hold her down.

       Noble testified that B.N. jammed the knife into him, causing blood to spray across her

face—onto her nose and the side of her chin. Noble testified that at this point he “had concern for

[his] own physical wellbeing.” 4 RP at 386. He then turned his arm, palm up, and placed it across

                                                 4
56794-6-II

B.N.’s upper chest while she was on the ground. He leaned forward, grabbed the arm holding the

box cutter, and shook it to make the box cutter fly toward her desk.

       B.N. turned her waist reaching for the box cutter, so Noble reached across her back,

grabbed her shoulder, turned her to face him, and placed both his hands down on both sides of her

collarbone and shoulder, holding her to the ground. He stated he did so because he was “trying

not to get injured anymore, get cut anymore”—that is, out of concern for his life. 4 RP at 388.

When asked if he was attempting to strangle B.N., he responded, “I was making no attempt to

strangle her at all.” 4 RP at 388. But, later on, Noble admitted that he “put [his] hands to either

side” of B.N.’s neck. 4 RP at 440.

       Dustin appeared at the door, phone in hand, when B.N. told him to call 911, and so Noble

added, “Please, call 911,” to which Dustin said he had. 4 RP at 388. Noble testified that he tried

to get off B.N., but she came up right away, so he pushed her down again and used the momentum

to get off her and leave the room.

       Noble went to his bedroom to check his wounds and clean blood off his arm. After that,

he went to the living room and kitchen area, where he saw Dustin and B.N. backed up in the corner,

and B.N. began to yell. She turned and grabbed a knife, so he told her, “I’ll knock you out,” and

Dustin got her to put the knife back on the rack. 4 RP at 390. Noble then exited the house and

saw his wife outside on the phone with the police.

       When asked at trial if he had been drinking that night, Noble admitted he normally has a

drink in the evening, but that night he had three drinks between 5 PM and 10 PM. However, he

stated he was not intoxicated.

                                                5
56794-6-II

       C.      Law Enforcement Testimony

       The trial court heard from officers White and Leitgeb. Leitgeb arrived first at the scene,

with White and the other responding officers arriving shortly thereafter. Leitgeb testified that B.N.

was distraught, very emotional, crying, and shaking upon arrival. Likewise, White noted that he

saw Dustin “super shooken [sic] up,” with his hands trembling “an insane amount.” 2 RP at 219.

       B.N. then showed Leitgeb what Noble allegedly did to her by placing her hands around her

neck and thumbs pressing against her windpipe. Leitgeb noted redness on B.N.’s neck, minor

scratches, and a cut by her eye with some blood but did not note any change in voice. As to Noble,

Leitgeb saw some injuries to his right arm but did not see any observable injuries to his fingers.

The officers did not report that Noble had any other wounds.

       D.      Expert Testimony

       The State called Thompson who testified about the physiology of strangulation. In turn,

the Defense called Dr. Lavine.

       Thompson testified that strangulation is the “external compression of the blood vessels

supplying blood and taking blood away from the brain and the head.” 3 RP at 258. Therefore, it

generally involves the neck area.

       Thompson testified that the average grip strength of males is between 80 and 100 pounds

per square inch (PSI). She also testified that it only takes “about” 11 PSI to completely obstruct a

carotid artery and between 4 and 11 PSI to obstruct the jugular vein. 3 RP at 263-64. Thompson

elaborated that when obstruction of the carotid artery or jugular vein occurs, “blood flow cannot

continue to progress downwards out of the head and neck,” increasing the pressure inside the head

and vessels and causing the brain to lose oxygen. 3 RP at 260-61.

                                                 6
56794-6-II

       Thompson testified that not everyone who experiences strangulation necessarily loses

consciousness or seeks medical help for various reasons. One reason is that victims do not want

to come forward or are hesitant to do so. Another reason is that they do not necessarily know they

were strangled due to the lack of oxygen getting to the brain, resulting in them not always

remembering the incident.

       Further, both Thompson and Lavine testified that the great majority of strangulation

victims do not have external signs of injury. However, Thompson noted that even if a victim does

present with injuries, it is typically delayed anywhere between hours to days later as the blood

takes time to collect at the site of injury in any visible manner. Therefore, Thompson generally

looks for other signs of strangulation, including a change in voice quality, complaints of pain,

difficulty speaking, swallowing, or breathing. However, those that do report noted experiencing

black spots in vision or tunnel vision, dizziness, coughing, difficulty breathing, and even loss of

bowel or bladder function.

       Next, Thompson analyzed the photo of B.N. demonstrating what occurred even though she

did not interview her. Thompson noted that B.N. had two very small abrasions to the side of the

nose and some irritation in the whites of her eyes. Thompson also noted that her neck showed

general redness and faint superficial abrasions on either side, which could be consistent with

strangulation.

       D.        Corina’s Testimony

       Next, Corina testified that she did not interact with Noble much on the day of the incident,

but when she did, he was “broody [and] moody.” 2 RP at 173. She added that earlier in the day,

Noble ate and then made himself a drink, and when he drinks, he gets “belligerent.” 2 RP at 174.

And that night it was “apparent . . . that he was intoxicated.” 2 RP at 174.

                                                 7
56794-6-II

       Corina testified that around 3:30 AM her youngest daughter shook her awake. Corina’s

daughter informed her that Noble was kicking in B.N.’s door and proceeded to hide in their

bathtub. Corina exited the bedroom and saw Dustin standing in the hall on the phone while B.N.

was on the floor with Noble straddling her. She testified that B.N. was trying to push Noble off

her and flailing her arms. Dustin then handed her the phone to talk with the dispatcher. However,

it was difficult to hear with B.N. and Noble yelling in the background, so she went outside. She

informed dispatch that Noble had been drinking that day.

       After the incident, she took B.N. to the hospital as suggested and noted that B.N. was

crying, describing her as “hysterical.” 2 RP at 187. Corina then said that B.N. complained of pain

when trying to swallow after leaving the hospital. She also noted B.N. had a “really, really rough

voice afterward[] for about a week or so.” 2 RP at 180.

       Corina testified that this was not an isolated incident. She testified that Noble had broken

B.N.’s door just a month prior following another verbal argument.

       E.      Dustin’s Testimony

       Dustin, Noble’s stepson, testified that he was in his room for most of the day and did not

notice anything strange about Noble. However, he did recall that later in the day, Noble entered

his room, said he did not feel like talking, told him not to say anything, handed him some fruit,

and left. Dustin woke up to a loud bashing and banging, and when he opened his door, he saw

Noble “ripping parts off” B.N.’s door. 2 RP at 162. Dustin then went back into his room and

grabbed his phone. Afterward, he saw Noble pulling B.N. by the ankles and dragging her off her

bed onto the floor. Noble then “started choking her,” noting he did so the “entire time, just [using]

different holds as she struggled,” and “[a]s she moved to almost break the holds, he would change

                                                 8
56794-6-II

it so that she couldn’t get out.” 2 RP at 163, 166. Dustin testified that B.N. then told him to “[c]all

the police” with a cracked voice. 2 RP at 164.

        While on the phone with dispatch, Dustin testified that he felt shaky. Dustin testified that

he saw Noble with his arms around B.N.’s neck, choking her, and heard her voice change and

struggle. On the phone with dispatch, Dustin described that “my dad is currently holding my sister

to the ground . . . he’s drunk . . . he broke down her door and is holding her to the ground.” Ex.

23A, at 0 min., 0 sec. to 1 min., 0 sec.

        Dustin testified that he and B.N. eventually went to the kitchen and he stood between her

and Noble. B.N. grabbed a knife to defend herself, but Dustin stated that he told her not to and to

put it back.

III.    VERDICT

        The jury found Noble guilty of assault in the second degree by strangulation. Noble

appeals.

                                            ANALYSIS

I.      SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

        Noble argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove that he had the requisite

intent to strangle B.N. We disagree.

        A.     Legal Principles

        Under both the federal and state constitutions, due process requires that the State prove

every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Hummel, 196 Wn. App. 329, 352,

383 P.3d 592 (2016). Thus, “sufficiency of the evidence is a question of constitutional law that

we review de novo.” State v. Rich, 184 Wn.2d 897, 903, 365 P.3d 746 (2016).

                                                  9
56794-6-II

       To determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, we consider

whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.

Cardenas-Flores, 189 Wn.2d 243, 265, 401 P.3d 19 (2017). Under this standard, the defendant

admits the truth of the State’s evidence, and we must view the evidence and all reasonable

inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the State. Id. at 265-66. Circumstantial

evidence and direct evidence are considered equally reliable. Id. at 266. We will not review the

finder of fact’s credibility determinations. Id.

       Under RCW 9A.36.021(1)(g), “[a] person is guilty of assault in the second degree if he or

she . . . (g) [a]ssaults another by strangulation or suffocation.” “[S]trangulation” means “to

compress a person’s neck, thereby obstructing the person’s blood flow or ability to breathe, or

doing so with the intent to obstruct the person’s blood flow or ability to breathe.” RCW

9A.04.110(26). Therefore, the plain language of the statute “defines strangulation in two ways:

(1) by the actual injury suffered by the victim, regardless of the specific intent of the perpetrator

or (2) by the specific intent of the perpetrator to obstruct the victim’s blood flow or breathing,

regardless of the actual injury suffered.” State v. Reed, 168 Wn. App. 553, 576, 278 P.3d 203

(2012); RCW 9A.04.110(26).

       B.      The State Presented Sufficient Evidence to Prove Assault in the Second Degree

       Noble contends that his only purpose during the altercation was to disarm B.N. and protect

himself from the box cutter she held, which he argues is supported by a comparison of the minor

scrapes she had versus the three slashes on his arm and the one on his chest. He also argues that

the State was required to prove he had the specific intent to obstruct B.N.’s blood flow or ability

to breathe.

                                                   10
56794-6-II

       The State responds, in conformity with RCW 9A.36.021(1)(g) and RCW 9A.04.110(26),

that it need only show either that B.N.’s blood flow or ability to breathe was actually obstructed to

some degree when Noble compressed her neck or that he specifically intended to obstruct her

airway or blood flow. We agree with the State.

       At the outset, Noble fails to acknowledge the subalternatives within the distinct

strangulation alternative of the assault statute. While there is a specific intent subalternative within

RCW 9A.36.021(1)(g) and RCW 9A.04.110(26), Noble’s position that the State is required to

prove intent to obstruct blood flow or ability to breathe is inaccurate. See State v. Christian, 18

Wn. App. 2d 185, 202, 489 P.3d 657 (2021) (stating that “‘the alternative means analysis does not

apply to subalternatives,’” because “‘the alleged alternatives are minor nuances inhering in the

same act,’” making them “‘facets of the same criminal conduct.’”) (internal quotation marks

omitted) (quoting State v. Espinoza, 14 Wn. App. 2d 810, 819, 474 P.3d 570 (2020)). Rather, the

State may proceed on either or both subalternatives presented within the strangulation alternative

of the assault in the second degree statute.3

       RCW 9A.36.021(1)(g) and RCW 9A.04.110(26) clearly define strangulation to include

among the two subalternatives “compress[ion] [of] a person’s neck, thereby obstructing the

person’s blood flow or ability to breathe.” The State need not also prove that Noble specifically

intended to obstruct B.N.’s blood flow or ability to breathe.

                1.      The State Met the Actual Obstruction Prong Set Out in the Statutes.

       Next, viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the State, the record supports the

actual obstruction prong, that is that Noble strangled B.N. such that he obstructed her blood flow

3
 Noble does not make any argument regarding unanimity of the jury verdict, the issue squarely
addressed in Christian, 18 Wn. App. 2d 185. Accordingly, we do not address the issue here.

                                                  11
56794-6-II

or the ability to breathe. Specifically, testimony from B.N., Dustin, and Corina described the

incident as Noble placing his hands on B.N.’s neck, constricting her ability to breathe and talk,

and “choking” her. 2 RP at 163; 4 RP at 453. Testimony also showed that B.N. experienced tunnel

vision, a horse, shaky voice for a week, and had trouble swallowing.

        Noble calls into question the evidence of actual obstruction because some of B.N.’s

symptoms did not appear immediately on the day of the incident. But, Thompson’s and Lavine’s

testimony was that the great majority of strangulation victims do not have external signs of injury.

Thus, even if a victim presents with injuries, the injuries are typically delayed between hours to

days later. In addition, other signs including a change in voice quality, complaints of pain or

difficulty speaking, swallowing, or breathing can be used to recognize if someone has been

strangled. B.N. reported pain in swallowing at the time of the incident, along with difficulty

breathing and resultant tunnel vision while being strangled. While the change in her voice quality

didn’t come about until shortly after the incident date, such a delayed appearance of that symptom

is consistent with Thompson’s and Lavine’s testimony when viewed in the light most favorable to

the State.

        Moreover, photographs admitted at trial demonstrated redness around B.N.’s neck,

bloodshot eyes, and a cut on her nose. And as Thompson’s testimony mentioned, those injuries

are consistent with signs of strangulation. Thus, the record contains sufficient evidence of injury

that the jury could infer that B.N.’s airway and blood flow were at least partially obstructed—

satisfying the actual obstruction prong

        Noble relies on State v. Rodriguez, 187 Wn. App. 922, 352 P.3d 200 (2015), for the

proposition that B.N. needed to have suffered lasting or permanent injuries around her neck to

show strangulation, he argues that because B.N. did not suffer any long-term side effects from the

                                                12
56794-6-II

alleged strangulation, the evidence of strangulation was insufficient. Specifically, Noble argues

that there was no indication that B.N. sought medical treatment or reported any difficulty

swallowing, breathing, or talking following her discharge from the hospital on the night of the

incident, which shows that he did not strangle B.N.

       But contrary to Noble’s argument, neither the statute nor applicable case law required the

jury to find B.N. suffered permanent or lifetime injuries in order to convict Noble of assault in the

second degree. RCW 9A.36.021(1)(g). So, Noble’s reliance on Rodriquez is misplaced for that

reason alone.

       But Noble’s reliance on Rodriguez is misplaced for another reason. The Rodriguez court

did not solely rely on the permanent scarring to affirm the conviction. 187 Wn. App. at 935-36.

Instead, it reasoned that the evidence established that Rodriguez grabbed the victim more than

once by the throat and squeezed, causing her difficulty breathing for minutes afterward, in addition

to causing permanent scarring. Id. While scarring was an aspect of the injuries evidencing the

strangulation in that case, the Rodriguez court did not hold that permanent scarring is required to

sustain a conviction for assault in the second degree. Id.

                2.     Intent Prong

       Even if we did not conclude there was sufficient evidence of actual obstruction, Noble’s

argument that there was insufficient evidence of the requisite intent to strangle B.N. also fails. The

jury could infer from the record that the physical injuries inflicted by Noble upon B.N., specifically

to her neck and throat, demonstrate an intent by Noble to affect B.N.’s breathing or blood flow.

The State presented sufficient evidence of the subalternative “intent” prong as well. Sufficient

evidence supports that Noble intended to commit assault in the second degree.

                                                 13
56794-6-II

II.    SELF-DEFENSE

       Next, Noble contends that the State failed to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable

doubt. We disagree.

       A       Legal Principles

       Self-defense is an affirmative defense to the charge of assault in the second degree. State

v. Tullar, 9 Wn. App. 2d 151, 156, 442 P.3d 620 (2019). RCW 9A.16.020(3) defines self-defense

as:

               The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another
       is not unlawful in the following cases:
               ....
               (3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully
       aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or
       her person . . . in case the force is not more than is necessary.

       The term necessary is defined as “no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force

appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose

intended.” RCW 9A.16.010(1).

       When self-defense is properly raised, the State bears the burden to prove the absence of

self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt in order to sustain a finding of guilt. State v. Grott, 195

Wn.2d 256, 266, 458 P.3d 750 (2020). When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence of self-

defense, we must determine what a reasonably prudent person would do if standing in the

defendant’s shoes. State v. Werner, 170 Wn.2d 333, 337, 241 P.3d 410 (2010). This includes both

a subjective and objective test. State v. Walden, 131 Wn.2d 469, 474, 932 P.2d 1237 (1997).

Under the subjective test, the court must “place itself in the defendant’s shoes and view the

defendant’s acts in light of all the facts and circumstances the defendant knew when the act

occurred.” State v. Read, 147 Wn.2d 238, 243, 53 P.3d 26 (2002). The objective test requires the

court to “determine what a reasonable person would have done if placed in the defendant’s

                                               14
56794-6-II

situation.” Id. “Accordingly, the degree of force used in self-defense is limited to what a

reasonably prudent person would find necessary under the conditions as they appeared to the

defendant.” Walden, 131 Wn.2d at 474.

       However, a defendant cannot invoke a self-defense claim when they are the initial

aggressor “because the victim of the aggressive act is entitled to respond with lawful force.” State

v. Kee, 6 Wn. App. 2d 874, 879, 431 P.3d 1080 (2018). Stated another way, “[t]he provoking act

must be intentional, but it cannot be the actual, charged assault.” Id.

       B.      The State Disproved Self-Defense by Showing Noble was the Initial Aggressor.

       Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, there is sufficient

evidence that Noble was the initial aggressor. The record shows that B.N. was in her room when

Noble came to her door after seeing her go in. He then started knocking and breaking down her

door when she did not answer or open it. His actions then caused the door to unlatch, and B.N.

closed it again, not knowing Noble was still there. Consequently, Noble began hitting the door

causing it to come off its hinges and creating a hole through the veneer, making the door fall away

completely in pieces. B.N., fearing harm, grabbed a box cutter. Noble then stepped into her room,

pushed her onto the bed, placed her in a choke hold, and dragged her onto the floor, all in spite of

being cut by B.N. Clearly, sufficient evidence supports that Noble was the initial aggressor.

       Next, in an attempt to show reasonableness of force used, Noble argues that he let B.N. go

after she was disarmed. However, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

State, as we must, the record shows that the force Noble used was not reasonable. Rather, the

record shows that Noble disarmed B.N. early in the struggle. But Noble then dragged her by the

ankles and put her in a headlock, obstructing her blood flow and ability to breathe. The State

                                                 15
56794-6-II

presented sufficient evidence both that Noble was the initial aggressor, and that the degree of force

used after disarming B.N. was unreasonable. This argument fails.

                                          CONCLUSION

        The State presented sufficient evidence to prove assault in the second degree and to disprove

self-defense. Accordingly, we affirm.

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

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,

it is so ordered.

                                                              Veljacic, J.

We concur:

        Glasgow, C.J.

        Che, J.

                                                 16