White v. StateWhite v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Rice
The demurrers to the indictment were properly overruled. Douglass v. State, 21 Ala. App. 289, 107 So. 791; Sims v. State, 23 Ala. App. 387, 126 So. 498; Terry v. State, ante, p. 321, 134 So. 820.
We find nо fault in the rulings of the court рermitting testimony as to what occurred at the time оf the arrest of appellant; his efforts to evade arrest, etc. Evidence as to any conduct or declarations of the • accused having rеlation to the offensе charged, indicating his cоnsciousness of guilt, is always admissible. Palmer v. State, 15 Ala. App. 262, 73 So. 139; Ex parte Palmer, 198 Ala. 693, 73 So. 1001; Horn v. State, 102 Ala. 144, 15 So. 278; Starling v. State, 18 Ala. App. 610, 93 So. 221; Jackson v. State, 11 Ala. App. 303, 66 So. 877.
It seеms that under the holding of our Supreme Court in the casе of Stinson v. State, 135 So. 571, 575, we arе unable to review the аction of the trial court in “refusing” certain written charges, appearing in the record, becausе “what appear in thе record proper [but, here, in the bill of excеptions] as speciаl charges were not, sо far as anything appеaring in the record [or аnywhere else, we interрolate], authoritatively indorsed ‘refused’ * *. * by the trial judgе, as required by the statute, and the mere statement оf the clerk to this effect is not authorized by the statute.” Stinson v. State, supra.
The indictment charged the aрpellant with the offense of “assault with intent to rob.” Cоde 1923, § 3303. He was found, by the jury, guilty “as charged in the indictment.” His adjudication of guilt, and punishment аwarded, followed, accordingly. The evidence was ample to support the verdict and judgment, and the motion for a new trial was properly overruled.
We discover, nowhere, prejudicial error, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.