Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts

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