160 So. 272 | Ala. Ct. App. | 1935
Appellants were jointly indicted for the offense of robbery (Code 1923, § 5460), jointly tried, and each convicted and sentenced to serve a term of ten years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. They jointly appeal.
The evidence is in direct conflict. That for the state tends to make out every element of the offense. That for the defendants tends to exculpate them. The issues were for the jury.
We have endeavored to perform our full duty under Code 1923, § 3258, aided by the brief filed here in behalf of appellants. But it seems unnecessary to enter upon any lengthy discussion of the rulings apparent which call for a review. Patently, as we view same, none of them were prejudicially erroneous.
The trial court, it is true, erroneously more than once overruled appellants' objection to questions calling for testimony as to their efforts to compromise the case. Graham v. State,
Whether appellants — this being a criminal prosecution — could or could not, in the absence of a motion for a new trial, get the benefit of the principle laid down in the opinion in the case of Birmingham Baptist Hospital, Inc., v. Blackwell,
We discover nowhere a prejudicially erroneous action or ruling, and the judgments of conviction are each affirmed.
Affirmed.