Volume 28 — Washington Appellate Reports

<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Review — Sufficiency of Evidence — In</bold> <bold>General.</bold> In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, an appellate court views the evidence most favorably to the State and determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. <bold>[2] Criminal Law — Evidence — Preservation — Failure of State —</bold> <bold>Corroboration.</bold> In order to establish a due process violation as the result of evidence being lost by the prosecution, a defendant must show that the evidence was material to guilt or innocence and favorable to him. Testimony which is wholly corroborative is not constitutionally material.

<bold>[1] Appeal and Error — Findings of Fact — Review — Short</bold> <bold>Record.</bold> When the record on appeal does not contain a verbatim report of proceedings, the findings of fact will be accepted as verities. <bold>[2] Frauds, Statute of — Principal and Agent — Sale of Realty —</bold> <bold>Oral Authority — Enforceability.</bold> An earnest money agreement signed by the seller's agent on the basis of oral authority to sell the property is enforceable by the purchaser. <bold>[3] Contempt — Punishment — Discretion of Court.</bold> The punishment to be imposed for contempt is within the sound discretion of the trial court. <bold>[4] Contempt — Violation of Court Order — Defenses — Advice of</bold> <bold>Counsel.</bold> A party's reliance upon the advice of his attorney is not a defense to being held in contempt for violating a court order. <bold>[5] Specific Performance — Delay — Consequential Damages.</bold> In addition to requiring specific performance, it is within the trial court's discretion to award consequential damages for losses caused by a significant delay between the time the performance was required under the contract and the time it actually takes place.

<bold>[1] Judges — Parent and Child — Deprivation — Change of Judge —</bold> <bold>Nature of Action.</bold> A petition seeking permanent deprivation of parental rights institutes a new and separate proceeding, for purposes of establishing the prejudice of a judge by affidavit pursuant to RCW <cross_reference>4.12.050</cross_reference>, notwithstanding that dependency proceedings involving the child had been presided over by the same judge against whom the affidavit is filed, and that a prior deprivation petition had been filed and abandoned. <bold>[2] Judges — Disqualification — Affidavit of Prejudice —</bold> <bold>Discretionary Rulings — Appointment of Counsel.</bold> The appointment or reappointment of a guardian ad litem in a deprivation proceeding, the appointment of counsel for the parents, and the setting of the cause for hearing are not discretionary rulings for purposes of the filing of an affidavit of prejudice against the judge under RCW <cross_reference>4.12.050</cross_reference>.<page_number>Page 906</page_number>