Brock v. State, 2 Div. 112

Decision Date27 January 1938
Docket Number2 Div. 112
Citation235 Ala. 304,178 So. 548
PartiesBROCK v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Petition of Douglas Brock for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of Brock v. State, 178 So. 547.

Writ denied.

Herbert & Herbert, of Demopolis, for petitioner.

A.A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

Counsel for the petitioner, in brief, concede the correctness of the opinion of the Court of Appeals as to exceptions to things stated in the oral charge, but insist that the exception complained of was "not merely to something stated but mainly and directly to things not stated or improperly omitted by the trial court from its oral charge."

"If the oral charge was not as full and instructive as plaintiff's counsel desired, he could have requested the giving of written charges elucidating and explaining his theory of the case from a legal standpoint and urged error on the part of the court in refusing same; but we do not, as a rule, pass on things the trial court did not say in the oral charge." Sudduth v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 201 Ala. 56, 77 So. 350, 351; Williams v. State, 147 Ala. 10, 41 So. 992.

The writ is denied.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Kemp v. Jackson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 20 d4 Setembro d4 1962
    ...for review on appeal, even though the suggestion was well founded. Mullins v. Lemley, 205 Ala. 593, 88 So. 831. See also: Brock v. State, 235 Ala. 304, 178 So. 548; Krasner v. Gurley, 248 Ala. 686, 29 So.2d 224; Keel v. Weinman, 266 Ala. 684, 98 So.2d 611; § 273, Title 7, Code 1940. Assignm......
  • Welch v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 7 d2 Dezembro d2 1954
    ...remedy was to tender an applicable written charge and urge error here on the action of the court in refusing it. Brock v. State, 235 Ala. 304, 178 So. 548; Davis v. State, 246 Ala. 101, 19 So.2d The defendant did not testify in the case nor introduce any evidence otherwise. In his argument ......
  • Smith v. State, 5 Div. 599
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 24 d4 Fevereiro d4 1955
    ...of the testimony. This is wholly ineffectual to present for revision the question sought to be reviewed. * * *' See also Brock v. State, 235 Ala 304, 178 So. 548; Alabama Jury Instructions by Walter B. Jones, Vol. 1, p. It appears that the defendant requested written charges which explained......
  • Ex parte Houston County, 4 Div. 998
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 27 d4 Janeiro d4 1938
    ... ... prescribed by law at the time of his appointment. State ... v. Gunter, 170 Ala. 165, 176, 54 So. 283 ... Judge ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT