Volume 66 — Washington Appellate Reports

<bold>[1] Negligence — Proximate Cause — Elements.</bold> The existence of proximate cause linking a negligent act with a particular result involves both cause in fact, <italic>i.e.,</italic> the physical connection between the act and the injury, and legal causation, as grounded in a policy determination of whether a direct or substantial connection exists between the act and the ultimate result. <bold>[2] Negligence — Proximate Cause — Legal Causation — Factors.</bold> Logic, common sense, justice, policy, and precedent are all factors to be considered in determining whether legal causation exists. <bold>[3] Judgment — Collateral Estoppel — Issue in Criminal</bold> <bold>Prosecution — Use in Civil Action.</bold> The doctrine of collateral estoppel may be asserted offensively to prevent a party from relitigating in a subsequent civil action an issue which was determined against the party in an earlier criminal prosecution so long as the party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the criminal proceeding and application of the doctrine does not work an injustice on the party. <bold>[4] Negligence — Highways — Duty of Care — Scope — Reckless</bold> <bold>Driving.</bold> A county, in maintaining its roads, is not required to protect against the consequences of criminally reckless drivers. <bold>[5] Negligence — Utility Services — Duty to Driving Public —</bold> <bold>Reckless Driving.</bold> A public utility, in placing its utility poles along a road, is not required to protect against the consequences of criminally reckless drivers.

<bold>[1] Juveniles — Juvenile Justice — Findings — Conclusions —</bold> <bold>Delayed Entry — Prejudice.</bold> The State's failure to comply with the 21-day limit for filing findings of fact and conclusions of law after a juvenile offender has filed a notice of appeal (JuCR 7.11(d)) does not merit dismissal of the prosecution if the written findings agree with the trial court's oral findings and the acceptance of the delayed findings does not present an appearance of unfairness or delay the appeal thereby prejudicing the offender's liberty interest. <bold>[2] Searches and Seizures — Protective Search — Detention</bold> <bold>Pending Bail — Holding Cell Security.</bold> The need to place an arrested person in a holding cell while bail is being arranged is an exigent circumstance which justifies a search for weapons or contraband prior to placing that person in the holding cell. <bold>[3] Searches and Seizures — Protective Search — Scope — Strip or</bold> <bold>Body Cavity Search — Reasonable Suspicion — What</bold> <bold>Constitutes.</bold> The "reasonable suspicion" of a threat to the security of a holding, detention, or local correctional facility required to justify a strip or body cavity search under RCW <cross_reference>10.79.130</cross_reference>(1)(a) is a lesser standard than probable cause. A "reasonable suspicion" must be capable of being articulated and must demonstrate a substantial possibility that criminal conduct detectable only by such a search is occurring or is about to occur.<page_number>Page 637</page_number> <bold>[4] Searches and Seizures — Protective Search — Scope — Strip or</bold> <bold>Body Cavity Search — Written Authorization — Purpose.</bold> The requirement of RCW <cross_reference>10.79.140</cross_reference>(2), that authorization to conduct a strip or body cavity search be in writing, facilitates proof that the person conducting such a search had consulted with the facility supervisor and had obtained permission to conduct the search. <bold>[5] Searches and Seizures — Protective Search — Scope — Strip or</bold> <bold>Body Cavity Search — Written Authorization — Absence.</bold> There is no need to suppress the results of a strip or body cavity search because of the State's failure to prove that written permission for the search was obtained so long as other means of proof demonstrate that such permission was obtained.

<bold>[1] Trial — Unexpected Events — Unusual Circumstances —</bold> <bold>Discretion of Court.</bold> Trial courts have broad discretion in dealing with unexpected events and unusual circumstances that occur at trial; the trial court's decision will be upheld unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. <bold>[2] Jury — Juror Questions — Transmission to Counsel.</bold> Upon receiving a written question from a juror, the trial court should transmit the question to counsel before framing a response. <bold>[3] Trial — Reopening for Additional Evidence — Discretion of</bold> <bold>Court — Prejudice.</bold> Whether to allow a party to reopen its case to present additional evidence is a matter within the trial court's discretion. The trial court's decision will be upheld on appeal if the court did not manifestly abuse its discretion and the complaining party did not suffer prejudice thereby. <bold>[4] Courts — Judicial Discretion — Abuse — What Constitutes — In</bold> <bold>General.</bold> Trial court discretion is abused when it is exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons. <bold>[5] Trial — Reopening for Additional Evidence — Juror Question —</bold> <bold>After Defense Rests.</bold> A trial court may allow the State to reopen its case after the defense has rested to address a juror question submitted in writing to the trial court so long as the defendant is not unfairly disadvantaged. <bold>[6] Criminal Law — Trial — Reopening for Additional Evidence —</bold> <bold>Disadvantage to Defendant — Mitigating Factors.</bold> Any disadvantage to a criminal defendant caused by the trial court's decision allowing the State to reopen its case after the defense has rested is mitigated if time is made available for defense counsel to interview witnesses from whom new testimony is to be elicited, the witnesses are available for cross examination, it does not appear that the State's motive in reopening its case is to place the defendant at a disadvantage, and there is no evidence that the State is engaging in trickery or has made a calculated decision to withhold evidence.