Court Opinion

ID: 9695445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:19:58.193526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:12.645919
License: Public Domain

CATES, Presiding Judge
(concurring especially).
I concur only because we do not know what was the import of the tendered written charges. In this posture we have error apparent on the record. (The oral charge must be taken down and it becomes a part of the record. Code 1940, T. 7 § 273, last sentence.). The request appears at the conclusion of the oral charge. An exception was reserved. See Vinson v. State, 10 Ala.App. 61, 64 So. 639; Gaddis v. State, 39 Ala.App. 68, 94 So.2d 228.
In Jackson v. State, 24 Ala.App. 601, 139 So. 576, a cavalier rejection and omission to endorse requested written instructions either as “given” or “refused” was held to be en-or. But the error was harmless because the charges apparently were otherwise covered or were not correct directions of law. Supreme Court Rule 45.
Here, we should have to resort to “speculation to guess” what the instant tendered charges said because they simply are not in the record before us.
Counsel on appeal bears the onus of getting a record up for the appellate court. Orum v. State, 286 Ala. 679, 245 So.2d 831. After decision we do not issue certiorari to patch up gaps. Sashner v. State, 46 Ala.App. 407, 243 So.2d 390.
Since the record is significantly silent, to reverse we should be guilty of ignoratio elenchi.
All the Judges concur.