Volume 20 — Washington Appellate Reports

<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Evidence — Other Offenses —</bold> <bold>Cross-Examination.</bold> Cross-examination of a defendant as to a prior conviction and parole after the subject has been first raised on direct examination lies within the discretion of the trial court. <bold>[2] Criminal Law — Trial — Conduct of Counsel — Prosecutorial</bold> <bold>Misconduct.</bold> Prosecutorial misconduct requires reversal only if there is a substantial likelihood that the misconduct affected the verdict and deprived the defendant of a fair and impartial trial. A mistrial should be declared for such misconduct only if the deliberation of the jury has been interfered with or the proceedings tainted so as to prevent a fair trial. <bold>[3] Trial — Instructions — Sufficiency — In General.</bold> An instruction is sufficient if it correctly states the law and, in conjunction with all of the other instructions, permits the parties to argue their theory of the case to the jury.<page_number>Page 593</page_number> <bold>[4] Controlled Substances — Possession — Elements — Exclusion of</bold> <bold>Others — Instructions.</bold> While the ability to exclude others from possessing an article is part of actual or constructive possession, the jury need not be specifically instructed as to such factor, but rather the presence or absence of such ability may be argued as to the existence of dominion and control. <bold>[5] Appeal and Error — Review — Issues Not Raised in Trial Court</bold> <bold>— Basic Rights.</bold> An appellate court will consider an alleged error raised for the first time on appeal if it raises a significant constitutional issue. <bold>[6] Controlled Substances — Possession — Unlawfulness —</bold> <bold>Presumption — Validity.</bold> The statutory presumption that possession of a controlled substance is unlawful shifts the burden to the defendant only as to an affirmative defense, not to an element of the crime. The burden of establishing unlawful possession beyond a reasonable doubt is still on the State, with the defendant required only to raise a reasonable doubt as to the unlawfulness of the possession.