STATE v. BARNES

PER CURIAM.

Albert Barnes appeals from a conviction for assault in the second degree on the grounds that the State failed to disprove self-defense. But the only evidence that Barnes acted in self-defense came from his own testimony, and the trial court determined that it was not credible. The evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.

In January, 2003, Barnes, his brother, Edward Cooke, their mother and several others gathered at the home of Marian Timmons, a family friend. Barnes and Cooke were intoxicated when they arrived. Their mother suffered from Alzheimer's disease and severe cataracts. She gave each of her sons some money, but gave Cooke more than Barnes. Barnes became enraged because she was favoring Cooke. According to Timmons, Barnes pulled out a knife, held it in a threatening stance, and told Cooke he was going to kill him. The two men began to struggle in the kitchen, sending dishes flying. At some point during the altercation, a friend took the knife away from Barnes, but he then grabbed another knife from the dishwasher. Although Cooke carries a switchblade, Timmons never saw it during the incident. She testified reluctantly, acknowledged that Barnes was her friend, but stated clearly that Barnes started the fight. As the two men were wrestling on the floor, their mother entered the kitchen wielding an iron in an apparent attempt to break up the fight. Initially she hit Cooke on the head with it, thinking he was Barnes, but then began striking Barnes when she realized her mistake. Both men suffered bloody injuries from the blows. Timmons called 911; the police found Cooke outside when they arrived. He told an officer that his brother tried to stab him and that Barnes had lunged at him with a knife three or four times. The only witnesses called by the State at trial were Timmons and the officer; Cooke did not testify.

Barnes testified that Cooke pulled his switchblade on Barnes at a point in the altercation when Timmons was not in a position to see it. However, he also indicated that Cooke continued to hold the knife as the men struggled, and attributed the wounds on his head to having been cut with the knife. Yet none of the witnesses to the incident, including Barnes, told the police that Cooke had displayed a knife during the incident. The trial court, which heard the case without a jury, did not find Barnes' account of the incident at trial to be credible.

Barnes argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish that he was not acting in self defense. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, however, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Barnes was not acting in self-defense. The trial court did not believe Barnes' testimony that Cooke was the aggressor; credibility determinations such as this are the sole province of the trier of fact and will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990). Substantial evidence establishes that Barnes was the primary aggressor and that he was not acting in self-defense. Barnes pulled a knife and threatened to kill Cooke; he lunged at Cooke several times; no one saw Cooke with a knife; and the injuries Barnes suffered were inflicted by his mother.

We affirm.

KENNEDY and COX, JJ., concur.