Volume 75 — Washington Appellate Reports

<bold>[1] Vendor and Purchaser — Earnest Money Agreement — Merger —</bold> <bold>Into Deed — Duty To Convey Good Title.</bold> Once a statutory warranty deed is executed, delivered, and accepted, the duty set forth in the real estate purchase and sale agreement to convey fee title by statutory warranty deed merges into the deed and the purchaser has no right of action based on the seller's breach of that duty. <bold>[2] Vendor and Purchaser — Earnest Money Agreement — Merger —</bold> <bold>Into Deed — Attorney Fee Provision.</bold> Once a statutory warranty deed is executed, delivered, and accepted, a provision in the real estate purchase and sale agreement authorizing an award of attorney fees to a party who is required to commence an action to enforce a right contained in the agreement merges into the deed; the parties' right to attorney fees for an action under the agreement ends when the sale closes. <bold>[3] Appeal — Disposition of Cause — Affirmance on Other Grounds</bold> <bold>— In General.</bold> An appellate court may sustain a judgment on any theory established by the pleadings and supported by the proof, regardless of the theory adopted by the trial court. <bold>[4] Deeds — Covenants of Title — Breach — Attorney Fees —</bold> <bold>Liability of Grantor.</bold> RCW <cross_reference>64.04.030</cross_reference> does not authorize an<page_number>Page 249</page_number> attorney fee award to a grantee who prevails in an action against a grantor for damages resulting from a breach of a covenant contained in a statutory warranty deed. <bold>[5] Appeal — Review — Issues Not Raised in Trial Court —</bold> <bold>Established Precedent.</bold> An appellate court is required to follow established precedent even if it was not argued in the trial court.

<bold>[1] Searches and Seizures — Consent — Joint Control — Test.</bold> A warrantless search is valid if it is based on the voluntary consent of a person who possesses common authority over the location searched. <bold>[2] Searches and Seizures — Consent — Scope — In General.</bold> The duration, area, and intensity of a search based on consent is limited to the reasonable scope of the consent given. <bold>[3] Searches and Seizures — Seizure — What Constitutes —</bold> <bold>Interference With Possessory Interests.</bold> For purposes of the<page_number>Page 670</page_number> Fourth Amendment, property has been "seized" when there is some meaningful interference with a person's possessory interest in property. A law enforcement officer's exercise of dominion and control over property qualifies as a "seizure" of it. <bold>[4] Searches and Seizures — Seizure — What Constitutes — Weapon</bold> <bold>Found During Search.</bold> While conducting a valid search, a law enforcement officer who picks up a weapon, unloads it, and carries it out of the room where it was found has "seized" the weapon. <bold>[5] Searches and Seizures — Seizure — Weapon — Temporary</bold> <bold>Detention — Protection of Officer.</bold> During the execution of a search based on consent, a law enforcement officer in the interest of protecting personal safety may briefly seize a dangerous weapon found, render it temporarily unusable by removing ammunition, and retain the weapon during the remainder of the search. <bold>[6] Searches and Seizures — Seizure — Consent — Joint Control.</bold> A person who possesses common authority over a location searched may consent to a law enforcement officer's seizure and removal of an item, regardless of whether the person owns the item or whether the item is suspected of being evidence of a crime. <bold>[7] Criminal Law — Trial — Joinder or Severance — Offenses —</bold> <bold>Prejudice — Burden of Proof.</bold> A criminal defendant seeking severance of charges has the burden of demonstrating that trying the charges together would result in manifest prejudice that would outweigh the concern for judicial economy. <bold>[8] Criminal Law — Trial — Joinder or Severance — Offenses —</bold> <bold>Review — Standard of Review.</bold> A trial court's refusal to sever criminal charges under CrR 4.4(b) is reviewed for a manifest abuse of discretion. <bold>[9] Criminal Law — Trial — Joinder or Severance — Offenses —</bold> <bold>Review — Factors.</bold> In determining whether a criminal defendant was prejudiced by having charges tried together, an appellate court should evaluate: (1) the strength of the State's evidence on each charge; (2) the clarity of the defenses to each charge; (3) the propriety of the trial court's instructions regarding the separate consideration of the evidence for each charge; and (4) the admissibility of evidence of the other charges if each charge were tried separately. <bold>[10] Criminal Law — Evidence — Hearsay — Admissions Against</bold> <bold>Interest — Failure To Deny Statement of Another — Silence —</bold> <bold>Test</bold> For purposes of ER 801(d)(2)(ii), which provides that a<page_number>Page 671</page_number> statement is not hearsay if the party against whom the statement is offered has manifested an adoption of or belief in its truth, the party's silence constitutes an adoptive admission if the party heard the statement, was able to respond, and the circumstances were such that it is reasonable to conclude that the party would have responded had he or she not intended to acquiesce. <bold>[11] Criminal Law — Right To Confront Witnesses —</bold> <bold>Self-Incrimination.</bold> The admission of a criminal defendant's own incriminating out-of-court statements does not implicate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. <bold>[12] Criminal Law — Trial — Joinder or Severance — Defendants —</bold> <bold>Codefendant's Statements — Implication Through Linkage.</bold> The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's out-of-court statements neither violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights nor requires severance of the codefendants' trials if the statements do not name or acknowledge the defendant as an accomplice and the only way that the statements implicate the defendant in the crime is through linkage with other evidence presented by the State.