Volume 66 — Washington Reports, Second Series

<bold>[1] Municipal Corporations — Public Improvements — Sewer</bold> <bold>Connection Charge — Basis of Charge.</bold> The grant of authority to a city by RCW <cross_reference>35.92.025</cross_reference>, to charge a property owner a reasonable charge for connecting to the city's sewerage system in order that the property owner shall bear his equitable share of the cost of the system, does not permit a city to base its charge on what it would cost today to reconstruct the system. <bold>[2] Evidence — Municipal Corporations — Public Improvements —</bold> <bold>Sewer Connection Charge — Burden of Proof.</bold> A plaintiff challenging a city's monetary charge for connection of his sewer line to the city's line, has the burden of showing that such fee is not a reasonable fee, but this burden does not require plaintiff to show what an equitable charge would be as provided by the governing statute. (RCW <cross_reference>35.92.025</cross_reference>). [1] See Ann. 70 A.L.R. 238; Am. Jur., Drains and Sewers (1st ed. § 58).

<bold>[1] Appeal and Error — Review — Subsequent Appeals — Law of the</bold> <bold>Case.</bold> Questions determined on a prior appeal of a cause, or which might have been determined had they been presented, will not again be considered on a subsequent appeal if there is no substantial change in the evidence at the second determination of the cause, since the court is bound by its decision on the first appeal until such time as it might be authoritatively overruled. <bold>[2] Trial — Damages — Instructions — Harmless Error.</bold> A trial court's refusal to give a plaintiff's instruction on damages is harmless error, if erroneous at all, where the verdict is returned in favor of the defendant and that verdict is sustained on appeal. [2] See Am. Jur., Damages (1st ed. § 369 <italic>et seq.</italic>).

<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Evidence — Confessions — Admissibility at</bold> <bold>Pretrial Proceeding.</bold> RPPP 101.20W, which regulates the procedure for admitting confessions in criminal prosecutions, was drafted to protect the rights of the accused, and was designed to prescribe a uniform procedure for the admission of voluntary confessions into evidence so that a jury will not have an opportunity to consider an involuntarily obtained confession. <bold>[2] Same — Evidence — Confessions — Requirements for Pretrial</bold> <bold>Hearing.</bold> The language in RPPP 101.20W, requiring a trial judge to set forth in writing certain findings during a pre-trial hearing on the admissibility of a defendant's confession, is mandatory, and, if not followed so that there is no record on appeal, the court will not attempt to draw fine distinctions in an effort to determine if the defendant's constitutional rights were protected. <bold>[3] Same — Evidence — Confessions — Instruction as to</bold> <bold>Voluntariness.</bold> RPPP 101.20W(d)(4) is a procedural provision accorded to defendants, rather than an absolute constitutional right, and is directive rather than mandatory, so that a defendant cannot refrain from requesting this instruction as to the weight and credibility of his confession and then assign error to the court's failure to give it. [1] See Ann. 1 A.L.R.3d 1251; Am. Jur., Evidence (1st ed. § 482).