In so holding we align ourselves with numerous state and federal jurisdictions. See, e.g., Claybrooks v. State, supra; State v. Morgan (1970), 3 Wn. App. 470, 475 P.2d 923; United States v. Singleton, supra; United States v. Rybicki, supra; United States v. Urbana (C.A. 5, 1969), 412 F.2d 1081, certiorari denied 400 U.S. 821. Compare the following cases, holding that failure to charge on an essential element constitutes plain and reversible error per se: Byrd v. United States (C.A.D.C. 1965), 342 F.2d 939; Merrill v. United States (C.A. 5, 1964), 338 F.2d 763; State v. Griffin, supra (dictum).
E.g., United States v. Bryant, 461 F.2d 912 (6th Cir. 1972); United States v. Gilbert, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 66, 433 F.2d 1172 (1970); United States v. East, 416 F.2d 351 (9th Cir. 1969); United States v. Rybicki, 403 F.2d 599 (6th Cir. 1968).E.g., People v. Turner, 22 Cal.App.3d 174, 99 Cal. Rptr. 186 (1972); People v. Patterson, 2 Ill. App.3d 902, 274 N.E.2d 467 (1971); State v. McKeough, 300 A.2d 755 (Me. 1973); State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 104 N.W.2d 650 (1960); State v. Morgan, 3 Wn. App. 470, 475 P.2d 923 (1970). State v. McKeough, 300 A.2d 755, 759-760 (Me. 1973).
In the absence of prejudice, there is no reversible error. State v. Carter, supra; State v. Morgan, 3 Wn. App. 470, 475 P.2d 923 (1970). "The trial court's instructions permitted [Kraus] to thoroughly argue to the jury his theory of the case. No more is required.
The quality of the identification goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of these exhibits. State v. Morgan, 3 Wn. App. 470, 475 P.2d 923 (1970). Defendant next contends the state failed to prove an essential element of the crime of grand larceny — that he knew or should have known the property he possessed had been stolen.
We think that the failure to give the instruction was not reversible error. See State v. Beard, 74 Wn.2d 335, 444 P.2d 651 (1968); Owens v. Anderson, 58 Wn.2d 448, 364 P.2d 14 (1961); State v. Morgan, 3 Wn. App. 470, 475 P.2d 923 (1970). [3, 4] Defendant next contends that RCW 5.60.050 requires that Dillon's testimony should have been stricken and defendant's motion to dismiss, interposed at the conclusion of the state's case in chief, accordingly granted.
There has been no showing that Carter was prejudiced by the failure to properly define the necessary element of intent to rob. In the absence of prejudice, even reviewable error is not reversible. State v. Morgan, 3 Wn. App. 470, 475 P.2d 923 (1970). WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OF CECIL WILSON