Volume 50 — Washington Reports, Second Series

[1] TRIAL — WAIVER OF ERRORS — MISCONDUCT OF COUNSEL — CLOSING ARGUMENT TO JURY. One is not permitted to engage in argument to the jury on a forbidden subject and speculate upon a favorable verdict and, when the verdict is adverse, complain that he should have a new trial because the adversary argued the opposite side of the same question. [2] SAME — CONDUCT OF COUNCIL — CLOSING ARGUMENT TO JURY. Reasonable latitude must be allowed counsel in arguing the case to the jury. [3] SAME — WAIVER OF ERRORS — MISCONDUCT OF COUNSEL — CLOSING ARGUMENT TO JURY. It was error for the trial court to grant a new trial on the ground that it had erred in refusing to instruct the jury to disregard a portion of the closing argument of plaintiff's counsel, where the defendants' counsel waived any error by arguing on the same subject in his own argument to the jury. [2] See 44 A.L.R. 2d 1205; 53 Am. Jur. 356.

[1] SEARCHES AND SEIZURES — SEARCH WARRANTS — EVIDENCE FOR ISSUANCE — PROBABLE CAUSE. The facts necessary to show probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant need not be supported by evidence admissible in the case in chief. [2] SAME. To constitute probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, there must be reasonable grounds for suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a man of ordinary caution in believing the accused to be guilty of the indicated crime. [3] SAME. A search warrant was issued upon probable cause that the accused was guilty of the crime of unlawfully possessing and having under his control a narcotic drug, where it appears that marijuana leaves from a plant growing in a garden in the accused's back yard were turned over to the police and analyzed, and thereupon a police officer went on the property of the accused's neighbor and observed some plants having the characteristics of marijuana growing in the accused's garden. [4] POISONS — NARCOTICS — PROSECUTION — POSSESSION OF NARCOTICS — ELEMENTS OF OFFENSE — INTENT. RCW 69.33.020, making it unlawful for any person to possess or have under his control any narcotic drug except as authorized, omits the words "with intent to sell," contained in the prior narcotics act (Laws of 1923, chapter 47, § 3), thereby evidencing a desire to make mere possession or control a crime. [5] APPEAL AND ERROR — REVIEW — INSTRUCTIONS — AS LAW OF CASE. Where no exception is taken to an instruction, it becomes the law of the case. [6] POISONS — NARCOTICS — PROSECUTION — POSSESSION OF NARCOTICS — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY. In a prosecution for unlawfully possessing and having under control a narcotic drug, held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty. [2] See 39 A.L.R. 835; 47 Am. Jur. 516.