Carter v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 842. |
| Citation | 4 So.2d 195,30 Ala.App. 251 |
| Parties | CARTER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 7, 1941.
James Garrett and John D. Petree, Jr., both of Montgomery, for appellant.
Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and James F. Matthews, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
From a judgment of conviction of the offense of rape, this appeal was taken.
The indictment, proper in form and substance, charged that the defendant, naming him, forcibly ravished Sarah Milton, a woman, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.
The defendant was duly and legally arraigned, and interposed his plea of not guilty, in answer to the indictment.
Rape being a capital offense, the lower court made and entered all requisite orders, and as to this no questions were raised below, or presented here.
The jury fixed defendant's punishment at twenty years, and the court, in accordance with said verdict duly sentenced him to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period of twenty years.
The evidence for the State made out a case, and it affirmatively appeared that some person, on the night, and upon the occasion in question, did forcibly ravish the woman named in the indictment. As to the foregoing there appears no conflict or dispute.
As we see it, the principal and controlling question in the case is the identity of the person who committed the crime. The defendant strenuously insisted he did not do so, and in support of his testimony he introduced several witnesses whose testimony tended to corroborate him. On the other hand, the woman in question testified emphatically that the defendant was the man who forcibly ravished her and no uncertainty appears in her testimony as to this. Other witnesses for the State testified to facts and circumstances which tended strongly to corroborate the testimony of the alleged injured party, hence the conflict in the testimony made the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused for the jury to determine.
Pending the trial of the case in the court below but few exceptions were reserved to the court's rulings. The exceptions have been carefully examined and attentively considered, and we find no ruling of the court in this connection infected with error which probably injuriously affected the substantial rights of the defendant.
It appears, that appellant relies principally upon the exception reserved to the court's action in overruling and denying his motion for a new trial, in order to effect a reversal of the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken.
In our case of Williams v. State, 20 Ala. App. 275, 101 So. 509, this court said: "The function of a motion for a new trial is to set up some error of law in the trial of the main case or the fact that the defendant has some newly discovered evidence that he could not obtain on the original trial." See, also, our case of Sparks v. State, 24 Ala.App. 585, 139 So. 300.
In the case at bar, the motion for a new trial is properly presented for review. It is based upon 10 separate and distinct grounds. The first seven grounds of the motion, from what has hereinabove been stated, cannot avail the defendant. The case, as stated, on the facts, presented a jury question, there being a direct conflict in the evidence as to the material facts involved upon the trial. As to the 8th, 9th and 10th grounds of the motion, the Attorney General, makes the following insistence:
The foregoing insistence is borne out and sustained by the record, for nothing appears therein tending to show that any objection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyd v. State
...438, 441 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), quoting Molina v. State, 533 So.2d 701, 713 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), quoting in turn Carter v. State, 30 Ala.App. 251, 253, 4 So.2d 195, 197 (1941). "Review on appeal is limited to matters as to which adverse rulings have been invoked at the trial level." Ruggs v. ......
-
Molina v. State, 1 Div. 524
...not be put in error in the absence of any attempt to invoke a ruling of the court in the matters complained of." Carter v. State, 30 Ala.App. 251, 253, 4 So.2d 195 (1941). The defendant's objection to the document which had been previously disclosed was properly overruled. Under the circums......
-
Kelley v. State, 1 Div. 384
...not be put in error in the absence of any attempt to invoke a ruling of the court in the matters complained of.' Carter v. State, 30 Ala.App. 251, 253, 4 So.2d 195 (1941). " 'The purpose of the rule requiring objection at the trial level before alleged errors will be considered on appeal 'i......
-
Brown v. State
...not be put in error in the absence of any attempt to invoke a ruling of the court in the matters complained of." Carter v. State, 30 Ala.App. 251, 253, 4 So.2d 195 (1941). The purpose of the rule requiring objection at the trial level before alleged errors will be considered on appeal "is t......