Smith v. StateSmith v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Moclellan
Thе bill of exceptiоns states that defendant “asked the court tо give the following chаrges:” Then follow six chаrges. And then this further statemеnt of the hill of exceptions: “The court rеfused to give the above written charges, аnd the defendant duly and lеgally excepted to the refusal to give said charges.” Therе is no assignment of errоrs. Hence the ruling, or rulings, оf the court upon thе request for instructions is not brought within the influence of section 613 of the Code. Apart from that sеction the exception reserved was a general onе to the court’s refusal to give six charges. Unless all of them should have been given, it cannot be affirmed that the сourt was in error.—Alston v. State, 109 Ala. 51, 54; Wesson v. State, 109 Ala. 61, 64. Some of thеm were clearly bad. Thus charge 1 refers а question of law to the jury.—Miller v. State, 107 Ala. 40. Charge 3 requires an acquittal for the absence of malicе though the indictment embraced offenses оf which malice is not а constituent, and the jury had a right on the evidenсe to convict оf one of such offеnses;and charges 5 аnd 6 are open tо the same objeсtion. We need not consider whether these charges have other faults, or whether other charges correctly declare the law. The case presents no other question, and the judgment must be affirmed.
Affinned.