Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts
Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts
March 5, 2010, by a motion to continue held on January 15, 2010. CP 160; Appendix B. Therefore, no hearing was held in this case on February 24, 2010. 02/2412010 RP 3. A written order was prepared and filed on January 15, 2010, which states that the motion for continuance was brought by the defendant for the reason that "[a]dditional time [was] needed to investigate & prepare." CP 160; Appendix B. The defendant appears to have signed that order. CP 160; Appendix B. Because a trial court does not abuse its discretion by granting a continuance "to allow defense counsel more time to prepare for trial, even over the defendant's objection," Williams, 104 Wn. App. at 523, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the January 15, 2010 continuance of the February 24, 2010 trial date. September 9, 2010 was a trial date scheduled on July 19, 2010. CP 162; 07/19/ 10 RP 4-11; Appendix D. However, it was continued to November 2, 2010, by a motion to continue heard on September 3, 2010. CP 163; Appendix E Therefore, no hearing was held in this case on September 9, 2010. 09/09/ 10 RP 12. A written order was prepared and filed on September 3, 2010, which indicates that the motion was brought by the State and defense counsel, and that the court continued the trial, over defendant's objection, pursuant to State v. Campbell because defense interviews need to be done" and "new discovery was just 43 - optest-prosmi mptnal rnedan - iel. doc
obtained via in camera review." CP 163; Appendix E. Again, because a trial court does not abuse its discretion by granting a continuance "to allow defense counsel more time to prepare for trial, even over the defendant's objection," Williams, 104 Wn. App, at 523, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the September 3, 2010, continuance of the September 9, 2010 trial date, Nor should the court or State be faulted for failure to transcribe the reports of the January 15 or September 3, 2010 proceedings. Under RAP 9.2( b), a] party"[ should arrange for the transcription of all those portions of the verbatim report of proceedings necessary to present the issues raised on review." Given that there were written orders continuing trial, dated January 15, 2010 and September 3, 2010, filed with the superior court, CP 160, 163; Appendix B & E, the defendant should have known of these proceedings. Nevertheless, he did not request transcription of them. With respect to the continuance granted on July 19, 2010, the defendant argues that the prosecutor made no showing that she subpoenaed the unavailable witnesses, and apparently, that the continuance was therefore improperly granted. Brief of Appellant, p, 35- 36. The record demonstrates otherwise. On July 19, 2010, the State moved to continue the trial to September 9, 2010, explaining that "two of the State's material witnesses 44 - optest-prosm i sesptrial mcdan - iel. doe
- Page 1 and 2: 930 Tacoma Avenue South Room 946 Ta
- Page 3 and 4: 2. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED
- Page 5 and 6: State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 84
- Page 7 and 8: Rules and Regulations CrR3. 3 .....
- Page 9 and 10: The court originally set Defendant'
- Page 11 and 12: State made a similar motion, RP 74-
- Page 13 and 14: 522-43, Elizabeth Wendell, RP 543-6
- Page 15 and 16: RP 339, 341. She testified that she
- Page 17 and 18: touching to S.D. RP 428-29. She tol
- Page 19 and 20: witnesses and arranged for a forens
- Page 21 and 22: C. ARGUMENT. 1. THE TRIAL COURT PRO
- Page 23 and 24: expansive view of claims that testi
- Page 25 and 26: Therefore, communicating to the jur
- Page 27 and 28: held that testimony describing "[t]
- Page 29 and 30: 2. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED
- Page 31 and 32: To be relevant, evidence must meet
- Page 33 and 34: RP 257. See RP 254-58, 261-62, 283-
- Page 35 and 36: ecollection of that molestation, an
- Page 37 and 38: mention of the rape-shield statute
- Page 39 and 40: 3. THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO MEET
- Page 41 and 42: the issues in the case, the evidenc
- Page 43 and 44: indicator for child sexual abuse."
- Page 45 and 46: emphasis added). T]he decision to g
- Page 47 and 48: and judges." Kenyon, 167 Wn.2d at 1
- Page 49: untenable reasons, "' State v. Flin
- Page 53 and 54: At that July 19, 2010 motion, the d
- Page 55 and 56: and judges at the time of that cont
- Page 57 and 58: Certificate of Service: The undersi
- Page 59 and 60: 1111111111111111111111 0 33454459 O
- Page 61 and 62: 09- 1 33587523 ORCTD 01- 19-10 SUPE
- Page 63: JUN 1 R " SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHING
- Page 66 and 67: APPENDIX E
- Page 68 and 69: APPENDIX F
- Page 70 and 71: APPENDIX G
- Page 72 and 73: APPENDIX H
- Page 74 and 75: APPENDIX I
- Page 76 and 77: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
- Page 78 and 79: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
- Page 80 and 81: STATE OF WASHINGTON, DENNIS MCDANIE
- Page 82 and 83: STATE OF WASHINGTON, DENNIS MCDANIE
March 5, 2010, by a motion to continue held on January 15, 2010. CP<br />
160; Appendix B. Therefore, no hearing was held in this case on February<br />
24, 2010. 02/2412010 RP 3. A written order was prepared and filed on<br />
January 15, 2010, which states that the motion for continuance was<br />
brought by the defendant for the reason that "[a]dditional time [was]<br />
needed to investigate & prepare." CP 160; Appendix B. The defendant<br />
appears to have signed that order. CP 160; Appendix B. Because a trial<br />
court does not abuse its discretion by granting a continuance "to allow<br />
defense counsel more time to prepare for trial, even over the defendant's<br />
objection," Williams, 104 Wn. App. at 523, the trial court did not abuse its<br />
discretion in granting the January 15, 2010 continuance of the February<br />
24, 2010 trial date.<br />
September 9, 2010 was a trial date scheduled on July 19, 2010. CP<br />
162; 07/19/ 10 RP 4-11; Appendix D. However, it was continued to<br />
November 2, 2010, by a motion to continue heard on September 3, 2010.<br />
CP 163; Appendix E Therefore, no hearing was held in this case on<br />
September 9, 2010. 09/09/ 10 RP 12. A written order was prepared and<br />
filed on September 3, 2010, which indicates that the motion was brought<br />
by the <strong>State</strong> and defense counsel, and that the court continued the trial,<br />
over defendant's objection, pursuant to <strong>State</strong> v. Campbell because<br />
defense interviews need to be done" and "new discovery was just<br />
43 - optest-prosmi mptnal rnedan - iel. doc
Change language