519 So. 2d 598 | Ala. Crim. App. | 1987
Willie Walker was convicted of robbery in the first degree and received a sentence of life without parole as a habitual offender.
"A juror may not testify, either in impeachment or in support of his verdict, as to what effect a matter had upon his mind as causing or not causing him to agree to the verdict, as to why he agreed to the verdict or concerning the mental processes by which he came to agree to the verdict." C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 94.06(2) (3rd ed. 1977). "[T]he rule does not permit evidence by the jurors of their own mental operations." Birmingham Electric Company v.Yoast,
This issue was not raised at trial and the grounds of objection asserted on appeal were not advanced in the trial court. Consequently, there is nothing to review.Gilliland v. State,
"The purpose of objection and exception is to challenge the correctness of the action of the court so that such action may be corrected by the court itself, if deemed erroneous, and to lay the foundation for review, if necessary, by the appellate tribunal. Without such objection, the trial court ordinarily has the right to assume that its action is acquiesced in and free from error." Turner v. State,
289 Ala. 97 ,100 ,265 So.2d 883 (1972).
The assignment of a specific ground of objection constitutes a waiver of all other grounds. Carter v. State,
Generally, a trial judge should not comment on the effect of testimony. Alabama Code 1975, §
"While a trial judge should not in jury cases indicate either favor or disfavor toward witnesses, it may often happen in the course of a trial that some occurrence will warrant comment by the court on the conduct of a witness. . . . Thus, a court may caution a witness to pay attention to the questions and . . . to think over what he is about to say, or to answer *600 questions frankly. . . . In the interest of an orderly trial, a trial court may in proper cases reprove or rebuke witnesses, and a mere admonition to a witness is not ordinarily prejudicial." 75 Am.Jur.2d Trial, § 113, at pp. 209-10 (1974).
"When a question is improper or calls for improper evidence, it is not error for the judge to intervene without an objection." 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 991, at pp. 1012-14 (1961). See also Gulley v. State,
This Court cannot ascertain any impropriety in the closing argument because defense counsel did not substantially identify the language deemed objectionable. "It is well established that objectionable remarks should be fully quoted, or substantially so, in an objection to improper argument." Jones v. State,
Furthermore, in the instances cited by the defendant, the record shows that the trial judge, on both occasions, instructed the jury to disregard the prosecutor's comments. "If the argument of counsel was not so objectionable as that it could be eradicated by instructions of the court, such action was sufficient." Canty v. State,
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
All Judges concur. *899