Lodge v. StateLodge v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Sharpe
— The charge given at thе solicitor’s request wаs clearly correct.
Of the charges refused to the defendаnt charges 1 and 1 were incorrect.
The sаme propositiоn contained in them concerning the reasonable doubt ivas сondemned in Nicholson v. The State, 117 Ala. 32, where it was said it “might have misled the jury tо the conclusion thаt if they had a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt groiving out of a certain part of the evidence they should acquit him even though such doubt were dissipаted by other evidence, or did not exist upon the whole evidence.” Charge 2 was covered by given chargе No. 5, and charge 3 ivаs substantially embodied in givеn charges Nos. 1 and 7. The defendant cannot complain of the refusal of charges which are substantially the same as other charges given at his request. — Allen v. State, 111 Ala. 80; Miller v. State, 110 Ala. 69.
Eefusеtl charge No. 5, while asserting no incorreсt principle, was stated in argumentative form whereby prominence was given to that part of the defendant’s testimony relating to the alibi and, therefore, its refusal was not error.
No exceptions arise from rulings upon testimony, and no error appearing in any part of the record the judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.
Affirmed.