This court affirmed petitioner's conviction. State v. Gilbert, 3 Wn. App. 491, 475 P.2d 797 (1970). The Supreme Court denied review.
Messrs. Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., Emmett H. Clairand Robert M. Ariail, Asst. Attys. Gen., of Columbia, forRespondent, cite: As to no error for the trial court tocharge the jury with regard to the statutory presumptionthat possession of marijuana in excess of 28 grams is aprima facie showing that possession was for sale: 319 U.S. 463; 395 U.S. 6; 396 U.S. 398; 380 U.S. 63, 85 S.Ct. 754, 13 L.Ed.2d 658 at 664; 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642; 24 L.Ed.2d 610 at 617, fn 6; 17 Ariz. App. 328, 497 P.2d 835; 276 N.C. 361, 172 S.E.2d 535; 1 Cal.App.3d 563, 81 Cal.Rptr. 812; 3 Cal.App.3d 776, 83 Cal.Rptr. 916; 3 Wn. App. 491, 475 P.2d 797. As to a lack of any prejudice to the Appellantin the Court's charging the amount from the 1971Drug Act necessary to show a prima facie presumption forsale when the Appellant was indicted and tried for violationof the statute in effect at the time the crime was committed: Act No. 1158, Acts and Joint Resolutions of the General Assembly of South Carolina, 1970, p. 2528; 246 S.C. 555, 144 S.E.2d 806; 52 S.C. 468, 30 S.E. 481.
People v. Jones, 553 P.2d 770 (Colo. 1976); State v. Fitzmaurice, 126 N.J. Super. 361, 314 A.2d 606 (1974); State v. Haremza, 213 Kan. 201, 515 P.2d 1217 (1973); State v. Gilbert, 3 Wn. App. 491, 475 P.2d 797 (1970). See also, Annot., 162 A.L.R. 495 (1946).
[6] Each instruction must be read in the light of all the instructions given, and the instructions considered as a whole. State v. Gilbert, 3 Wn. App. 491, 475 P.2d 797 (1970). The trial court gave three instructions which bear upon this issue.
The statutory presumption permitted by RCW 77.16.050, that possession of an artificial light and a rifle after sunset in any wooded section where deer or other animals mentioned in the statute may reasonably be expected is prima facie evidence of unlawful hunting, was upheld in State v. Person, 56 Wn.2d 283, 352 P.2d 189, 81 A.L.R.2d 1088 (1960). The presumption created by RCW 9.41.030, which provides that being armed with a pistol without a license to carry it is prima facie evidence of intent to commit a crime of violence, was held to be constitutionally valid in State v. Thomas, supra, and State v. Gilbert, 3 Wn. App. 491, 475 P.2d 797 (1970). Legislative interest in providing for support of children by their parents, rather than by the public, is great when many worthy purposes call for expenditure of limited public resources.
Appellants' next three assignments of error contend that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the presumption that possession of marijuana in excess of 40 grams shall be prima facie evidence that the possession was with intent to sell. Such an instruction was upheld in State v. Person, 56 Wn.2d 283, 352 P.2d 189, 81 A.L.R.2d 1088 (1960), State v. Thomas, 58 Wn.2d 746, 364 P.2d 930 (1961), and State v. Gilbert, 3 Wn. App. 491, 475 P.2d 797 (1970). Finally, appellants argue there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction.