Volume 18 — Washington Appellate Reports

<bold>[1] Trial — Course and Conduct — Reopening — Determination.</bold> Permitting a party to reopen and present additional testimony is discretionary with the trial court and a manifest abuse is required for reversal. <bold>[2] Courts — Jurisdiction — Location of State Boundary —</bold> <bold>Determination.</bold> The location of the state boundary with respect to the site of alleged criminal acts is generally a question of fact. Expert testimony is not essential in locating such boundary. <bold>[3] Malicious Mischief — Statutory Provisions — "Use in Trade" —</bold> <bold>What Constitutes.</bold> Using a vehicle for transportation to and from a job does not constitute use of the vehicle "in trade" within the meaning of former RCW 9.61.040(7), which proscribes interference with certain property used in trade.

<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Identity of Informant — Nondisclosure —</bold> <bold>Exception.</bold> The nondisclosure of the identity of a police informer, as sanctioned under CrR 4.7(f)(2) and RCW <cross_reference>5.60.060</cross_reference>(5), serves to preserve his anonymity and encourages his communication of knowledge of criminal activity to the police. The value of this protection and its resultant benefit to society must be weighed against the right of a criminal defendant to prepare his defense, and a determination as to an exception to nondisclosure must be made in each case on the particular circumstances involved. The defendant seeking disclosure has the burden of justifying the exception. <bold>[2] Criminal Law — Identity of Informant — Nondisclosure —</bold> <bold>Examination In Camera.</bold> An in camera examination of a police officer as to the identity of a police informant and the need to protect such information is proper under the provisions of CrR 4.7(h)(6) after a criminal defendant has made a prima facie showing of the need for disclosure of the informant. <bold>[3] Criminal Law — Witnesses — Confrontation — Police</bold> <bold>Informant.</bold> A criminal defendant is entitled to confront only those witnesses appearing against him at trial on the issue of his guilt or<page_number>Page 234</page_number> innocence. A police informant not so testifying need not be identified under Sixth Amendment provisions. <bold>[4] Searches and Seizures — Validity — Burden of Proof.</bold> Once it is established that a search warrant was issued and a search conducted pursuant thereto, the burden of showing illegality of the search shifts to the party asserting it. <bold>[5] Searches and Seizures — Probable Cause — Informant —</bold> <bold>Hearsay.</bold> A magistrate may find probable cause to justify issuing a search warrant when an informant's statement, although containing hearsay, would allow a reasonable person to conclude that both the information and the informant are reliable. <bold>[6] Searches and Seizures — Warrant — Scope — Contraband.</bold> A police officer searching premises within the scope of a warrant may seize any contraband discovered during the search. <bold>[7] Criminal Law — Witnesses — Subpoena — Effect.</bold> The State is not a guarantor that a person subpoenaed by the defense will appear for trial.

<bold>[1] Searches and Seizures — Blood Sample — In General.</bold> The taking of a blood sample from an accused is a seizure of physical evidence for Fourth Amendment purposes. <bold>[2] Searches and Seizures — Warrant — Probable Cause — In</bold> <bold>General.</bold> An affidavit provides probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant when it supplies rational grounds to believe that evidence of criminal activity will be obtained in the search. It is not necessary to convince the issuing magistrate beyond a reasonable doubt. <bold>[3] Searches and Seizures — Witnesses — Husband-Wife Privilege —</bold> <bold>Search Warrant — Affidavit.</bold> The husband-wife privilege does not prevent the affidavit of a spouse from being used to support the issuance of a search warrant against the other spouse. <bold>[4] Witnesses — Husband-Wife Privilege — Criminal Investigation</bold> <bold>— Presence of Spouse.</bold> Testimony of a third person regarding the presence of a defendant's spouse during the course of the investigation of a crime does not violate the husband-wife privilege. <bold>[5] Witnesses — Cross-Examination — Scope.</bold> The scope of cross-examination of a witness is limited to matters covered on direct examination. The trial court may exercise discretion in applying such limitation. <bold>[6] Criminal Law — Evidence — Presumptions — Validity.</bold> A presumption whereby the existence of an element of a crime may be presumed from a proven fact meets due process requirements when the fact presumed follows beyond a reasonable doubt from the proven fact. <bold>[7] Criminal Law — Evidence — Presumptions — Intent — Result.</bold> Proof of a defendant's voluntary act permits the jury to determine the natural consequences of that act and to presume that such consequences were intended. Such a presumption does not shift the burden of proof upon the defendant. <bold>[8] Homicide — Evidence — Motive.</bold> Motive is relevant in a homicide prosecution. <bold>[9] Criminal Law — Lesser Included Offense — Submission to</bold> <bold>Jury.</bold> A jury may be instructed on a lesser included offense<page_number>Page 319</page_number> only when evidence sufficient to support a verdict for that offense has been presented. <bold>[10] Witnesses — List of Witnesses — Unlisted Witness —</bold> <bold>Discretion of Court.</bold> Permission to call an unlisted witness lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overruled save for a manifest abuse of discretion.

<bold>[1] Civil Service — Discharge — Judicial Review — Nature —</bold> <bold>Proceeding.</bold> A civil service commission's final determination resulting in the discharge of an employee is judicial in nature and equivalent to a ruling of a court of limited jurisdiction. An aggrieved employee is entitled to a review of that determination by means of a writ of certiorari in the absence of a statute or rule providing another method of review. <bold>[2] Certiorari — Timeliness — In General.</bold> An application for a writ of certiorari to review an act of a judicial nature must be made within the time period prescribed for an appeal unless extenuating circumstances excuse a delay in seeking the writ. A justification for perfecting review already commenced is not necessarily an excuse for terminating that proceeding and commencing a new proceeding after a substantial delay. <bold>[3] Appeal and Error — Disposition of Cause — Affirmance on</bold> <bold>Other Grounds.</bold> A trial court's judgment may be affirmed on appeal if it is sustainable on any ground within the pleadings and proof. <bold>[4] Equity — Laches — Prejudice — Necessity.</bold> The application of laches depends not only on the passage of time but also on effects of that delay on the relative positions of the parties.<page_number>Page 419</page_number>