Notice here the court states in caselaw in State v. McCullum it says that self-defense is a statutory defense? In state v. Fry the supreme ct said it is an Aff. Def. in the walla-walla case of assault which is completely wrong... read up on trespass statutes in other jurisdictions and you will see exactly what I am saying here...hell, even do it here in wa....it will shock you as it did me to find out these lerned professionals was taking us patients for a ride for their benefit...

We got some slick learned professionals here in wa. working we the people pretty hard here to keep us paying for their food, cars, houses, hookers, etc..when they can easily do the proper motions to protect us the patients...

It is a statutory defense to the crime of criminal trespass that "the actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain." RCW 9A.52.090(3). Statutory defenses to criminal trespass negate the unlawful presence element of criminal trespass and are therefore not affirmative defenses. State v. R.H., 86 Wn. App. 807, 812, 939 P.2d 217 (1997). [***11] Further, the burden [**738] is on the State to prove the absence of the defense when a defendant asserts his or her entry was permissible under RCW 9A.52.090(2) because that defense "negates the requirement for criminal trespass that the entry be unlawful." State v. Finley, 97 Wn. App. 129, 138, 982 P.2d 681 (1999). Thus, once a defendant has offered some evidence that his or her entry was permissible under RCW 9A.52.090, the State bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lacked license to enter. See, e.g., State v. McCullum, 98 Wn.2d 484, 490, 656 P.2d 1064 (1983) (self-defense is a statutory defense and, as such, once properly raised, the absence of self-defense becomes another element of the offense which the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt).