Court Opinion

ID: 9824866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:35:01.061487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:10.890210
License: Public Domain

*621SAMFORD, J.
The evidence in this case without conflict shows that the homicide was committed in a sudden reneountre. Under the evidence, if the defendant could not legally invoke the doctrine of self-defense, the facts, if believed beyond a reasonable doubt, entitled the state to a verdict of conviction. There is no rule of law better settled in this state than, where a defendant enters into a difficulty willingly and in the difficulty kills his adversary, he cannot invoke the doctrine of self-defense. George v. State, 145 Ala. 41, 40 South. 961, 117 Am. St. Rep. 17; 8 Michie’s Digest, p. 363, § 254.
The charges appearing in the transcript are not numbered, and therefore are not treated separately, but none of them are indorsed by the trial judge and signed by him, as is required by Acts 1915, p. 815, in order that they may become a part of the record. Not being so indorsed, and therefore not a part of the record, they cannot be considered. Wimberly v. State, 204 Ala. 629, 86 South. 900; Mason v. State, 16 Ala. App. 405, 78 South. 321.
The trial court will not be put in error for requiring defendant to go to trial in the absence of two eyewitnesses, where it is not made to appear that the trial court abused his discretion which does not appear here.
We have carefully examined the rulings of the court upon the admission of testimony, and find that such rulings were free from error, and the exceptions reserved are without merit.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.