Volume 56 — Washington Appellate Reports

<bold>[1] Appeal — Notice of Appeal — Timeliness — Extension of</bold> <bold>Jurisdiction.</bold> An order for which review was not sought in a timely manner and which purports to extend jurisdiction over a party may be reviewed under RAP 2.4(b) when review of a later related issue is timely sought. <bold>[2] Juveniles — Juvenile Justice — Jurisdiction — Extension Past</bold> <bold>Majority — Timeliness.</bold> The jurisdiction of a juvenile court is strictly construed and, under RCW <cross_reference>13.40.300</cross_reference>, cannot be extended past majority unless the extension is in effect prior to the 18th birthday of the person over whom jurisdiction is sought. <bold>[3] Courts — Orders — Nunc Pro Tunc Order — Review — Discretion</bold> <bold>of Court.</bold> A nunc pro tunc order is reviewed only to<page_number>Page 408</page_number> determine if the court manifestly abused its discretion by making the order. <bold>[4] Courts — Orders — Nunc Pro Tunc Order — Purpose — Omission.</bold> The purpose of a nunc pro tunc order is restricted to recording a judicial action previously taken; it cannot be used to remedy an omitted act. <bold>[5] Juveniles — Juvenile Justice — Jurisdiction — Extension Past</bold> <bold>Majority — Nunc Pro Tunc Order — Public Policy.</bold> The strong policy preference for juvenile court jurisdiction over offenders is not sufficient to validate a nunc pro tunc order purporting to extend juvenile court jurisdiction when the order is entered after an offender has attained the age of majority. Such an order is an abuse of judicial discretion. <bold>[6] Courts — Orders — Nunc Pro Tunc Order — Review — Proponent</bold> <bold>as Challenger.</bold> A party which proposed an invalid nunc pro tunc order may later challenge its validity.

<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Evidence — Photographs — Gruesome Nature —</bold> <bold>Balancing Test.</bold> Photographs of the victim of a crime, even though gruesome, are admissible if their probative value outweighs their prejudicial effect. Photographs are probative to prove elements of the crime and to rebut a defense. The trial court should exercise its discretion in avoiding unnecessary duplication and in choosing the type of evidence which will have the least amount of prejudicial emotional impact. <bold>[2] Criminal Law — Lesser Included Offense — Instruction —</bold> <bold>Necessity — In General.</bold> A criminal defendant is not entitled to<page_number>Page 647</page_number> a lesser included offense instruction if an element of the lesser offense under the theory proposed is not a necessary element of the offense charged. <bold>[3] Criminal Law — Lesser Included Offense — Instruction —</bold> <bold>Necessity — Statutory Provisions.</bold> RCW <cross_reference>10.61.003</cross_reference> and .010 do not require the giving of a lesser included offense instruction unless the evidence supports an inference that the lesser offense alone was committed. <bold>[4] Criminal Law — Punishment — Sentence — Outside Standard</bold> <bold>Range — Aggravating Circumstances — Uncharged Criminal Acts —</bold> <bold>Repeated Child Abuse.</bold> A trial court may consider multiple incidents of child abuse committed over a prolonged period of time as an aggravating circumstance justifying a sentence exceeding the standard range. Even when such incidents constitute separate crimes, the real facts doctrine as codified in RCW 9.94A.370(2) does not preclude a court from considering them if it would be unrealistic for the State to charge a separate count for each particular instance of abuse under the facts of the case.