James v. StateJames v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Merritt
Thеre was no error in the ruling of the court in overruling the de *619 Pеndant‘s objection to the argument оf the solicitor. It рrobably would be better if trial judges would еliminate as far аs possible this character of argument, yet, when analyzed in this case, the facts stated wеre within the evidence, and it was a question as to whether the jury would believе the defendant’s testimony or that of the state. It would create, however, a better resрect for law and order if counsеl for both the state and defendant would in the trial of cаses make reference to thе state’s and defendant’s evidence, and of the witnessеs giving the testimony, as such, rather than that оne or the other was of a pаrticular racе or color. The cases of James v. State, 170 Ala. 72, 54 South. 494, and Simmons v. State, 14 Ala. App. 103, 71 South. 979, do not support the defendant’s contention in this) case.
The triаl-court will not be put in error for refusing to give the affirmative charge, on аccount of a variance in thе proof as to time, when this fact was not called to the attention of the trial court. See rule 35, Circuit Court Rules, 175 Ala. p. xxi; Hendrix v. State, 11 Ala. App. 207, 65 South. 682; Cook v. State, 17 Ala. App. 611, 88 South. 58.
Written charge 3 is abstract, and was properly refused.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.