fourth assignment error in Washington

2019We address the assignments of error in the order stated.5 4 State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566 , 683 P.2d 173 (1984). 5 A fourth assignment of error challenged the trial court’s sentencing decision to run one count of a separate sentence consecutively to the sentence imposed in this case.

2019We address the assignments of error in the order stated.5 4 State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566 , 683 P.2d 173 (1984). 5 A fourth assignment of error challenged the trial court’s sentencing decision to run one count of a separate sentence consecutively to the sentence imposed in this case.

1979The fourth assignment of error claims that the presumption in instruction No. 12 does not meet the standards for determining the constitutional validity of an evidentiary presumption as set forth in State v. Roberts, 88 Wn.2d 337 , 562 P.2d 1259 (1977).

1979The fourth assignment of error claims that the presumption in instruction No. 12 does not meet the standards for determining the constitutional validity of an evidentiary presumption as set forth in State v. Roberts, 88 Wn.2d 337 , 562 P.2d 1259 (1977).

1968The complete answer to this assignment is contained in State v. Persinger, 62 Wn.2d 362, 364 , 382 P.2d 497 (1963), in which this court stated: One accused of being an habitual criminal is not charged with a criminal offense.

1968The complete answer to this assignment is contained in State v. Persinger, 62 Wn.2d 362, 364 , 382 P.2d 497 (1963), in which this court stated: One accused of being an habitual criminal is not charged with a criminal offense.

1967State v. Holbrook, 66 Wn.2d 278 , 401 P.2d 971 (1965).

1967State v. Holbrook, 66 Wn.2d 278 , 401 P.2d 971 (1965).

1966It was argued that his testimony establishes no more than the possibility of a ruptured disc, therefore, the testimony does not come within the 'ambit of Glazer v. Adams, 64 Wn.2d 144, 148 , 391 P.2d 195 (1964) and cases cited therein, that “. . . medical testimony must at least be that the injury ‘probably’ or ‘more likely than not’ caused the sub- - sequent condition, rather than that the accident or injury ‘might have,’ ‘could have,’ or ‘possibly did’ cause the subsequent condition. . . . ” The witness was subject to a lengthy direct and cross examination.

1966It was argued that his testimony establishes no more than the possibility of a ruptured disc, therefore, the testimony does not come within the 'ambit of Glazer v. Adams, 64 Wn.2d 144, 148 , 391 P.2d 195 (1964) and cases cited therein, that “. . . medical testimony must at least be that the injury ‘probably’ or ‘more likely than not’ caused the sub- - sequent condition, rather than that the accident or injury ‘might have,’ ‘could have,’ or ‘possibly did’ cause the subsequent condition. . . . ” The witness was subject to a lengthy direct and cross examination.

1964The first two objections are based on Young v. Liddington, 50 Wn. (2d) 78, 309 P. (2d) 761 (1957), the only case cited by appellants to support this fourth assignment of error.

1962Assignment No. 5: In this assignment appellant challenges the constitutionality of the following portion of RCW 9.48.030 providing for the imposition of the death penalty in first-degree murder cases: “Murder in the first degree shall be punishable by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for life, unless the jury shall find that the punishment shall be death; and in every trial for murder in the first degree, the jury shall, if it find the defendant guilty, also find a special verdict as to whether or not the death penalty shall be inflicted; and if such special verdict is in the affirmative

1962Assignment No. 5: In this assignment appellant challenges the constitutionality of the following portion of RCW 9.48.030 providing for the imposition of the death penalty in first-degree murder cases: “Murder in the first degree shall be punishable by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for life, unless the jury shall find that the punishment shall be death; and in every trial for murder in the first degree, the jury shall, if it find the defendant guilty, also find a special verdict as to whether or not the death penalty shall be inflicted; and if such special verdict is in the affirmative