72 So. 605 | Ala. Ct. App. | 1916
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]
Buck Roden was convicted of homicide and he appeals. Affirmed.
(1, 2) This is the second appeal in this case (Roden v.State,
(3) The bill of exceptions does not purport to set out all the evidence, and on appeal the presumption will be indulged in favor of the ruling of the trial court that evidence was offered making material the testimony offered by the state to show that no powder burns were found on the clothes of the deceased when examined the next morning after the killing. — Dickey v. State, infra,
(4) This same presumption will be indulged as to the argument of counsel. In the very nature of things, when all the evidence in the case is not shown by the record, this court is in no position to say that the argument of counsel was not within the evidence; and to constitute reversible error it must affirmatively *135
appear that the statement to which exception was reserved was the statement of a fact not justified by the evidence in the case. — Cross v. State,
(5) It affirmatively appears from the record that no exceptions were reserved to the charge of the court given ex mero motu, and this charge will not be reviewed. — McPhersonv. State,
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.