Bridgeforth v. StateBridgeforth v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Sampobd
Frоm the bill of exceptions, it apрears that in open court, while the trial was in progress, and while the state’s counsel was mаking his closing argument, hе made the following statement to the jury:
“I don’t know what your еxperience is, but my experience has been that it is difficult to get evidеnce against a bootlegger; thеy always work’ and squirm to keep from testifying.”
This remark of the solicitor, made in thе! course of his address to the jury, was а referencе in argument to a matter of commоn observation, and, if not entirely justified, was not the statemеnt of a substantive fаct’ pertinent to the issue (Cross v. Statе, 68 Ala. 476-484), nor do we think that the issues, the partiеs, and the general atmosphere of the ease were such as to render the remаrk prejudicial еrror (Moulton v. Statе [Sup.] 74 South. 454; 2 Birmingham Ry. Co. v. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 61 South. 80, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 543). The foregoing is not in conflict with the line of cases cited in appellant’s brief, but, аs was said in Moulton’s Case, supra, “each case of this character must be decided on its own merits.”
We find no error in the record, and the judgment i« affirmed.
Affirmed.