Lockwood v. State, 5 Div. 238.
| Decision Date | 13 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 238. |
| Citation | 33 Ala.App. 337,33 So.2d 401 |
| Parties | LOCKWOOD v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Arthur D. Shores, of Birmingham, for appellant.
A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Richard S. Brooks, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The appeal here is from a judgment of conviction for the offense of assault with intent to murder, said judgment being based on and in line with the verdict of the jury.
Section 389, Title 15, of the Code of Alabama, is as follows:
Pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the above quoted Statute, this court has carefully examined the record in this case and have ascertained said record is in all respects regular and without apparent error thereon.
It appears from the transcript of the evidence contained in the record that the trial of this case proceeded throughout without objection or exception. No exceptions were reserved to any ruling of the court upon admission of the testimony nor to the oral charge of the court. No written charges were requested, nor was there a motion for a new trial.
As stated, the record proper in this transcript is free from irregularity. The transcript of the evidence fails to show that any exception was reserved, in any manner, to any action or ruling of the trial court on the trial.
In respect of cases in the category to which this case belongs the jurisdiction this court has is appellate only. Review here, in such cases, is limited to those matters upon which action or ruling at nisi prius was invoked and had. Accordingly, where the evidence is deemed insufficient to warrant a conviction a ruling of the trial court on that proposition must be properly (usually by special instruction requested) invited, in order to invoke or justify a review of the question, so raised below, by this appellate court. Such is the settled rule, on principle and in practice, by which this court is bound. We, perforce, therefore must and do order, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pointer v. State, 8 Div. 406
...48, 11 So.2d 870; Chambers v. State, 31 Ala.App. 269, 15 So.2d 742, certiorari denied 245 Ala. 113, 15 So.2d 744; Lockwood v. State, 33 Ala.App. 337, 33 So.2d 401; Whited v. State, 27 Ala.App. 466, 174 So. Defendant's sole insistence of error in brief is predicated upon the action of the tr......
-
Howard v. State, 4 Div. 155
...48, 11 So.2d 870; Chambers v. State, 31 Ala.App. 269, 15 So.2d 742, certiorari denied 245 Ala. 113, 15 So.2d 744; Lockwood v. State, 33 Ala.App. 337, 33 So.2d 401; Shealey v. State, Ala.App., 54 So.2d 311. In some instances during the trial there was no ruling by the court upon objections i......
-
Alday v. State, 1 Div. 899
...at the nisi prius proceeding was invoked,' Harwood, J., in Lipscomb v. State, 32 Ala.App. 623, 29 So.2d 145. See also Lockwood v. State, 33 Ala.App. 337, 33 So.2d 401. The only exception is in a case of ineradicable harm. Jackson v. State, 260 Ala. 641, 71 So.2d 825. However, Jackson says t......
-
Hall v. State
...of the appellate court and those matters upon which action or ruling in the trial court was invoked and had. Lockwood v. State, 33 Ala.App. 337, 33 So.2d 401; Segers v. State, 283 Ala. 682, 220 So.2d The declaration of the organization of the trial court in the record does not conform to th......