erred in giving instruction in Washington

1991He claims the instructions in this case were similar to the ones given in State v. MacMaster, 113 Wn.2d 226 , 778 P.2d 1037 (1989), which were found unacceptable by the Supreme Court.

1991He claims the instructions in this case were similar to the ones given in State v. MacMaster, 113 Wn.2d 226 , 778 P.2d 1037 (1989), which were found unacceptable by the Supreme Court.

1942Appellant also contends that the court erred in giving instruction No. 6, in that the jury were informed that before they could find the defendant guilty they *560 must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt “A. That on either the 22nd day of October, 1940, or the 23rd day of October, 1940, between the hours of 4:30 in the morning and 8:30 in the morning,” etc. In view of the fact that appellant did not set out this instruction in full in his brief, as required by paragraph 5, of rule XVI, Rules of the Supreme Court, 193 Wash. 25 -a (State v. Hussey, 188 Wash. 454 , 62 P. (2d) 1350 ), we canno

1942Appellant also contends that the court erred in giving instruction No. 6, in that the jury were informed that before they could find the defendant guilty they *560 must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt “A. That on either the 22nd day of October, 1940, or the 23rd day of October, 1940, between the hours of 4:30 in the morning and 8:30 in the morning,” etc. In view of the fact that appellant did not set out this instruction in full in his brief, as required by paragraph 5, of rule XVI, Rules of the Supreme Court, 193 Wash. 25 -a (State v. Hussey, 188 Wash. 454 , 62 P. (2d) 1350 ), we canno

1941This question relative to the instruction given is set at rest by our decision in the recent case of Wright v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 7 Wn. (2d) 341, 109 P. (2d) 542 .

1941“To say now that some unusual effort or strain is necessary to render death compensable, would not only be in direct conflict with the plain and emphatic language of our holdings, but would also introduce an element of uncertainty and confusion, in that every case would present a problem as to the standard to be used in determining whether or not, in a given instance, the exertion was unusual, and whether or not the workman was expending only the ordinary exertion required in a particular line of employment.” McCormick Lumber Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries, 7 Wn. (2d) 40, 108 P. (2d)

1928This instruction was in accordance with the law as stated in State v. Godwin, 131 Wash. 591 , 230 Pac. 831 , and it was not error to give it.

1928This instruction was in accordance with the law as stated in State v. Godwin, 131 Wash. 591 , 230 Pac. 831 , and it was not error to give it.

1924The court told the jury that possession may be actual or constructive, following the case of State v. Spillman, 110 Wash. 662 , 188 Pac. 915 ; State v. Parent, and State v. Jones, supra. It is contended that, under these decisions, actual possession involves two elements — individual occupancy of the thing and the right to dispose of it in any manner the possessor sees fit.

1924The court told the jury that possession may be actual or constructive, following the case of State v. Spillman, 110 Wash. 662 , 188 Pac. 915 ; State v. Parent, and State v. Jones, supra. It is contended that, under these decisions, actual possession involves two elements — individual occupancy of the thing and the right to dispose of it in any manner the possessor sees fit.