§ 9.11 Special Considerations in Establishing The Content of the Record

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§9.11 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS IN ESTABLISHING THE CONTENT OF THE RECORD

Although parties are encouraged to include only the record necessary to review of the issues raised, certain materials are essential to particular issues and cases.

(1) Challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence

A party urging that a verdict or finding of fact is not supported by the evidence must include in the record all evidence relevant to the disputed verdict or finding. RAP 9.2(b); see State v. McKague, 172 Wn.2d 802, 807, 262 P.3d 1225 (2011) (court declined to consider video that was not made part of the record when appellant failed to make a good-faith effort to include it despite appellant's claim that the video was necessary to evaluate his claim that the evidence did not support the jury's verdict); Noble v. Ogborn,43 Wn.App. 387, 717 P.2d 285 (court refused to consider cross appeal arguing that the trial court's damages award was not supported by substantial evidence because the party had failed to supplement the record with the evidence adduced at trial), review denied, 106 Wn.2d 1004 (1986). If an appellant seeks reversal for insufficient evidence to support the trial court decision, the entire verbatim report will probably be essential. Without the entire verbatim report, it may be impossible to demonstrate that the parts not ordered did not contain evidence to support the decision. See Lau v. Nelson,92 Wn.2d 823, 829, 601 P.2d 527 (1979) (in affirming the trial court's exclusion of an expert witness, the court held that without the full record it must "assume that there was evidence upon the question of causation which the jury was capable of understanding without the aid of an expert").

If a party seeking review intends to argue the sufficiency of evidence in an administrative proceeding, the party must include the entire record of the administrative proceeding. Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP), Rule 9.2 cmt. (b), 86 Wn.2d 1133, 1184 (1976), reprinted in 2A Karl B. Tegland, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: RULES PRACTICE, Task Force Comment to RAP 9.2(b), at 648 (8th ed. 2014); see also Cowlitz Stud Co. v. Clevenger,157 Wn.2d 569, 573-74, 141 P.3d 1 (2006) (Supreme Court could not consider petitioner's argument that the trial court erred in considering a claim not previously considered by Department of Labor and Industries when petitioner failed to designate the record before the department); Barrie v. Kitsap Cnty.,84 Wn.2d 579, 527 P.2d 1377 (1974) (court refused to review the proceedings of a county planning commission and board of county commissioners without a full verbatim report of proceedings); Tunget v. State Emp't...