Ferguson v. State, 7 Div. 728.

• Decision Date: 04 August 1931
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 728.
• Parties: FERGUSON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

137 So. 315

24 Ala.App. 491

FERGUSON v. STATE.

7 Div. 728.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

August 4, 1931

Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1931.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; O. A. Steele, Judge.

John R Ferguson was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Ferguson v. State, 137 So. 317.

W. T Murphree, of Gadsden, and Frank B. Embry, of Pell City, for appellant.

Thomas E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN P.J.

The appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of murder in the first degree, the charge being that he unlawfully, and with malice aforethought, killed William J. Andrews, by shooting him with a gun or pistol, etc. The trial resulted in a conviction of murder in the second degree, and the jury fixed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for ten years. This appeal was taken from the judgment of conviction pronounced and entered in accordance with the verdict of the jury.

Insistence is made that the court erred in certain portions of the oral charge. Upon examination we find that the exceptions reserved in this connection are abortive and as a result cannot be considered. By reference to the record we find the purported exceptions to the court's oral charge were attempted to be reserved in the following manner. "Mr. Murphree: The defendant excepts to that part of the oral charge which says it was his duty to retreat from the barn." "Also that portion that it is the State's contention that he armed himself with a deadly weapon and went to the barn for the purpose of taking the life of William Andrews." These attempted exceptions do not meet the required rule, they being descriptive only, and not the reservation of an exception to a particular exactly designated statement of the judge. There is no rule of practice which allows an exception by description of a subject treated by the court in an oral charge to the jury. Friedman's Case, 187 Ala. 562, 65 So. 939; Reed v. State, 18 Ala. App. 371, 92 So. 513.

Appellant contends there was error in overruling his motion to quash the venire and copy of the indictment served upon him. The grounds of the motion were: "(1) Because the certificate attached to said venire and indictment is not certified by the clerk of said circuit court. (2) Because said certificate to said venire and copy of the indictment is signed Mack Davis, who is not the Clerk of said Circuit Court."

There are several reasons why the foregoing insistence cannot be sustained. In the first place there nowhere appears in the record the copy of the venire and copy of indictment with endorsements, served upon the defendant. In the absence of which this court will assume that the officers below performed their duty as the law requires, in the absence of any showing in the record. Hughes v. State, 117 Ala. 25, 23 So. 677. When error is urged upon appeal the insisting party is under the duty to affirmatively show error, and in this instance it was incumbent upon appellant to see that the record in his case was properly prepared so that this court, on appeal, could be apprised of the happenings in the lower court complained of. The record speaks for itself, and omissions and discrepancies therein cannot be supplied by a bill of exceptions. Moreover, there is nothing in the statute requiring specifically that the clerk of the court shall sign and certify the copy of the venire and copy of indictment served upon the defendant. It was not pretended that the defendant had been in any way deceived or misled by the list and copy of indictment which was furnished him. In the absence of any showing that such was the case, the objection urged is not sufficient ground for quashing the venire. Aiken v. State, 35 Ala. 399, 404. Furthermore, the making of the list and the copy of the indictment is clerical merely; and its service executive or ministerial. Kenan v. State, 73 Ala. 15. Aside from all this we are of the opinion that under the "agreed facts" shown by the bill of exceptions that Mack Davis, who did sign and certify the copy of the venire and indictment, was a de facto officer exercising the duties of his office under color of an election thereto, and as such his official acts were binding upon the parties in interest. Coe v. City of Dothan, 19 Ala. App. 33, 94 So. 186, and cases cited.

There is no merit in the insistence to the effect that error prevailed in that certain proceedings of the trial had in the absence of the defendant. It affirmatively appears that such irregularity as appeared in this connection was fully cured by the action of the court. It affirmatively appears that the defendant was present at every stage of the trial, and the Attorney General, representing the state in this court, is correct in the insistence: "It is clear, from the record,...