Court Opinion

ID: 9824586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:55:41.204482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:52.132641
License: Public Domain

BRICKEN, P. J.
There are numerous points of decision insisted upon by appellant as error. These relate, mainly, upon the rulings of the court on the admission of evidence. After an examination of these exceptions, we are convinced that no reversible error appears. We discover no ruling of the court in this connection prejudicial to the appellant’s substantial rights. It would serve no purpose in discussing these matters, and we refrain from so doing.
 The exceptions to the oral charge of the court are not presented. They are by reference only and as a consequence are not within the rule which would authorize this court to review or consider them. An exception to the oral charge is insufficient if descriptive only. In other words, there is no practice which allows an exception by description of a subject treated by the court in an oral charge to the jury. The rule is that the reservation of an exception must be to a particular, exactly designated statement of the judge in the oral charge. An exception to the oral charge is abortive and cannot be considered unless so taken.
Among ’the several charges requested in writing by appellant and refused we find charge No. 4%, which is as follows:
“The court charges the jury if there is, from the evidence, a reasonable probability of the defendant’s innocence, the jury should acquit the defendant.”
This charge asserts a correct proposition of law, and its refusal was error that must reverse the case. So said this court in the case of Huguley v. State, 4 Ala. App. 29, 58 So. 814. To sustain said holding numerous decisions are cited in the Huguley Case, supra, to which special reference is here made.
Reversed and remanded.