562 So. 2d 609 | Ala. Crim. App. | 1989
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *611
A.K. was adjudged a delinquent child by the Walker County Juvenile Court following an adjudicatory hearing on a petition charging him with possessing, selling, furnishing, giving away, or obtaining codeine phosphate in violation of the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act.
The appellant cites no legal authority to support this contention and, therefore, this Court is not obligated to consider this argument on appeal. Vinzant v. State,
A careful review of the record reveals that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The witness had already answered the question and the question was merely repetitive. Wright v.State,
Furthermore, this issue was not properly preserved for appeal because the appellant's counsel failed to make an offer of proof. Baker v. State,
"A statement by the accused, before the time of the alleged criminal act, asserting a design or emotion in him which points to his guilt is admissible against him as an admission." C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 264.01 (3d ed. 1977). Seealso Smith v. State,
A defendant in a criminal case may place his character before the factfinder in two ways: "(1) he is entitled to prove his good moral character as a whole (without restriction to any particular trait) and (2) he is entitled to prove his good general character with respect to a specific trait which is involved in the offense for which he is charged."McElroy at § 27.01(2). The appellant attempted to put in evidence of his character for truth and veracity rather than his good moral character as a whole. *613
Furthermore, truth and veracity are not specific traits which are relevant to the offense charged. An accused is not entitled to offer evidence of his good character for truth and veracity to bolster his own testimony. Traweek v. State,
The appellant contends on appeal that error occurred because he never received notice that these depositions were to be taken.1
We are unable to address this issue because this matter was never brought to the attention of the trial court and no ruling was obtained and, therefore, there is nothing before this court to review. Johnson v. State,
"Our review is limited to matters on which rulings have been invoked at the trial court." Moore v. State,
The appellant asserts in brief that he was unaware that these depositions had been taken until he received his copy of the completed record on appeal. There is no indication in the record as to whether the appellant received notice of the taking of these depositions and no evidence as to when the appellant became aware of the existence of these depositions.
This court is bound by this record and not by allegations in brief as to circumstances not reflected by the appellate record. Miles v. State,
Thus, this issue has not been properly preserved for our review.
In view of our discussion above, this cause is due to be and is, hereby, affirmed.
AFFIRMED. *614
All the Judges concur.
TAYLOR, P.J., concurs in result only.