Court Opinion

ID: 9825535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:18:26.87871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:57.194218
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
On application for rehearing in this cause, it is claimed that we went outside the record when we referred to the place where the homicide occurred as a “roadhouse.” We did not intend to cast any reflections on the character and nature of the defendant’s place of business, as counsel seems to conclude. The evidence discloses that the place in question was operated by the side of the road or highway. It was not a house in the sense that a dwelling is denoted. It does appear that there was a bed in the kitchen department which was used at times by the owner or employees. A fair description of the nature of its operations is: A small restaurant or cafe and space for dancing. Some groceries, tobaccos, etc., were kept for sale.
It is insisted also that our statement that “the deceased was a customer or visitor” does not find support in the record. It is true that there was no specific testimony that the deceased actually made any purchases during the time he was there. We have no way of knowing the purpose or object of his visit. This uncertainty prompted us to follow the above quoted statement with “at least he came there before noon and remained until midnight of the same day, at which latter time he was killed.”
Counsel in application for rehearing says this: “As we understand the law, in criminal cases, there is no necessity for assigning grounds when an objection is made because if there is error in the admission or rejection of testimony, it is the duty of the court to so hold and as pointed out in ■our brief on submission, there are some rulings of the court that certainly were prejudicial to appellant.”
It is evident that counsel has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 389, Title 15, Code 1940.
It is true that in criminal cases the appellate courts “must consider all questions apparent on the record or reserved by bill of exceptions (now transcription of testimony, we interpolate), and must render such judgment as the law demands.” This is not construed to mean that a review will be made of questions which are not properly raised.
This court and the Supreme Court have held time and time again in criminal cases that to save the benefit of a ruling at nisi prius on the admission of testimony timely objections must be interposed to the questions and that appropriate grounds of objections mtíst be stated in support thereof. 6 Alabama Digest, Criminal Law, «=695(4).
To respond to other matters which are urged in the application for rehearing would be in effect a reiteration and a repetition of what was said in our original opinion.
The application for rehearing is overruled.