Volume 16 — Washington Appellate Reports

<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Continuance — Determination — Review.</bold> The granting of a motion by the State for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be overturned on appeal only upon a showing of a manifest abuse of such discretion. <bold>[2] Criminal Law — Trial — Time of Trial — Continuance —</bold> <bold>Preference to Civil Case.</bold> While criminal cases have an absolute priority over civil cases during the 60-day speedy trial period (CrR 3.3), when a valid continuance is granted it may be within the trial court's discretion, under exceptional circumstances, to reset a criminal trial behind a civil case and beyond the 60-day period. <bold>[3] Appeal and Error — Assignments of Error — Citation of</bold> <bold>Authority — Necessity.</bold> An appellate court need not consider any allegation of error which is unsupported by probative authority unless it appears on its face to be well taken. <bold>[4] Criminal Law — Review — Harmless Error — In General.</bold> An appellate court need not consider any alleged error involving the rights of a criminal defendant unless there is some indication that he was thereby prejudiced in some way.

<bold>[1] Health — County Health Districts — Powers — Private Sewage</bold> <bold>Disposal Systems.</bold> The regulation of private sewage disposal systems is within the police powers validly delegated to local boards of health under RCW <cross_reference>70.05.060</cross_reference>(2), (3). <bold>[2] Health — Sanitary Regulations — Validity — Impact on</bold> <bold>Property Rights.</bold> In enacting public sanitation regulations, a local health department acts as a legislative body with wide discretion regarding the proper application of the police power to protect the public health. Such regulations will not be disturbed on judicial review unless unreasonable means are employed or natural and constitutional rights are infringed. An adverse impact on the property rights of certain individuals which results from a reasonable exercise of the police power in this area does not constitute such an infringement. <bold>[3] Statutes — Validity — Burden of Proof.</bold> Statutes are presumed to be valid and the burden of establishing the unconstitutionality of a statute rests on the person so asserting. <bold>[4] Appeal and Error — Findings of Fact — Review — In General.</bold> A trial court's findings of fact will be accepted as verities on appeal when no exception was taken at trial to those findings or when they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. <bold>[5] Constitutional Law — Police Power — Validity — Economic</bold> <bold>Impact.</bold> Economic hardship is generally not a sufficient basis for challenging a legislative exercise of the police power. <bold>[6] Health — Sanitation Permit — Vested Right — In General.</bold> An individual may not claim any vested right in obtaining a sanitation permit under previously existing regulations when that person failed to make application for such permit prior to the enactment of new regulations. <bold>[7] Estoppel — Application — Discretion of Court — Public Health</bold> <bold>and Safety.</bold> A determination of whether to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel is within a trial court's inherent authority and will generally not be disturbed on appeal when it relates to an exercise of the police power in the field of public health and safety. <bold>[8] Trial — By Court — Findings of Fact — Sufficiency — In</bold> <bold>General.</bold> A trial court's findings of fact need not cover all items of evidence introduced in a case but are sufficient when they deal with all material issues and it is clear what questions were decided and the manner in which they were resolved.<page_number>Page 710</page_number>

<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Confessions — Corpus Delicti — Proof —</bold> <bold>Necessity.</bold> A corpus delicti may not be established by an extrajudicial confession alone, but it may be established by a combination of independent proof and the confession. For such purposes, the independent proof need only be prima facie evidence, <italic>i.e.,</italic> evidence which would support a logical and reasonable deduction of the fact sought to be proved. <bold>[2] Larceny — Evidence — Commingled Goods.</bold> The possession of goods proven to have been stolen, commingled with other goods all of which are in a similar condition, gives rise to an inference that all the goods involved are stolen.