Court Opinion

ID: 9825312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:34:41.206491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:41.085328
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The further importunate insistence by appellant’s counsel to the effect that the motion for a new trial was presented in order that this court could review the ruling of the trial court thereon is not borne out; for, as stated, the motion for new trial, nor anything pertaining thereto, is not contained in the bill of exceptions in this case. The bill of exceptions is set out on pages 6 to 23 of the transcript. Appellant’s counsel appears to be confused, and regards the record proper, and the bill of exceptions, as being one and the same. We reiterate, the action of the court on motion for new trial is no part of the *432record proper. For the benefit of counsel, in the case at bar, we here cite a number of authorities from the many hundreds of decisions of the appellate courts of this State on this point:
“Although exception to ruling on motion for new trial appeared in record proper, failure of bill of exceptions to show such exception was fatal to right of review. Ex parte Rials, 211 Ala. 615, 101 So. 630; Conn v. State, 19 Ala.App. 209, 96 So. 640, cert. den. Ex Parte Conn, 209 Ala. 453, 96 So. 642; Gotcher v. State, 19 Ala. App. 269, 97 So. 111; Wright v. State, 20 Ala.App. 22, 100 So. 458.
“A motion for new trial will not be reviewed, where not set out in the bill of exceptions. Hopkins v. State, 18 Ala.App. 423, 93 So. 40; Wells v. State, 19 Ala.App. 403, 97 So. 681.
“Motion for new trial was not presented for consideration on appeal, where not referred to in bill of exceptions. Flowers v. State, 22 Ala.App. 27, 112 So. 221, certiorari denied 215 Ala. 660, 112 So. 222; Jacobs v. State, 23 Ala.App. 486, 127 So. 264.
“Where'.bill of exceptions contains no reference to motion for new trial, trial court’s action with reference thereto will .not. be reviewed. * * *
“Refusal of motion for new trial held not presented on appeal, where bill of exceptions made no reference to motion (Code 1923, § 6088). Andrews v. State, 23 Ala.App. 520, 128 So. 126; Lashley v. State, 24 Ala.App. 136, 131 So. 454.
“Court’s ruling on motion for new trial, set out in record proper only and not mentioned in bill of exceptions, cannot be considered on appeal (Code 1923, § 6088). Byrd v. State, 24 Ala.App. 451, 136 So. 431; Smith v, State, 25 Ala.App. 79, 141 So. 265; Smith v. State, 25 Ala.App. 405, 148 So. 858, cert. den. 227 Ala. 160, 148 So. 860.
[‘Overruling of defendant’s motion for a new trial cannot be reviewed, where neither the motion nor any reference thereto appears in the bill of exceptions. — Dukes v. State, 210 Ala. 442, 98 So. 368. * * *
“On failure to set out motion for new trial in bill of exceptions, denial thereof is not presented for review on appeal.— Moon v. State, 21 Ala.App. 111, 105 So. 427. * * *
“Appellate court cannot review overruling of motion for new trial, where bill of exceptions contains neither motion, ruling thereon, nor exceptions to ruling.— King v. State, 23 Ala.App. 237, 123 So. 290.
“Incorporation of motion. for new trial in record proper does not alone make ruling thereon reviewable on appeal (Code 1923, § 6088). — Felder v. State, 24 Ala.App. 472, 136 So. 847, cert. den. 223 Ala. 397, 136 So. 848.
“Court’s ruling on motion for new trial set out in record proper only cannot be reviewed where ruling or exception was not incorporated in bill of exceptions (Code 1923, § 6088). — Riddle v. State, 25 Ala.App. 142, 142 So. 680, cert. den. 225 Ala. 218, 142 So. 682.
“Motion for new trial appearing only in record proper held not presented for consideration (Code 1923, § 6088). — Ray v. State, 25 Ala.App. 262, 145 So. 325, cert. den. (1933) 226 Ala. 62, 145 So. 327.” Alabama Dig., Criminal Law <§=’ 1124(1).
Appellant’s “Proposition No. 2” on rehearing is equally without merit. State witness Simmons after a full and complete predicate testified as to statements made to him in the nature of confessions by the defendant. The court ruled correctly in admitting this testimony. It doer, not appear that the defendant denied making said statements to witness Simmons, although he took the stand as a witness in his own behalf and thus had the opportunity so to do. As this testimony of Simmons appears in the bill of exceptions, it is without conflict or dispute.
Appellant’s “Proposition 3” on rehearing is wholly untenable. The trial court’s rulings upon the testimony of witness E. J. Bryant is so clearly free from error as not to necessitate or warrant discussion;
Application for rehearing overruled.