Under Alabama law there is no requirement that an indictment specify that a defendant attempted to commit a particular substantive offense for that defendant to be convicted of attempting to commit the offense. Bateman v. State, 408 So.2d 194, (Ala.Cr.App. 1981). Therefore, when an indictment is intended to charge that only an attempt to commit the substantive offense occurred, it would be illogical to require the indictment to specify more than an attempt to commit the offense.
Therefore, a requested jury charge is properly refused if it contains misspelled or misused words which would tend to confuse the jury or if it is not predicated upon the evidence. Bateman v. State, 408 So.2d 194 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981). In addition, if a requested charge that would be a proper instruction is covered in the oral charge or by the given requested charges, then its refusal does not constitute error.
Davidson v. State, 792 So.2d 1153, 1156 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (“In order to establish the corpus delicti of arson, the State must prove: (1) damage to a building, (2) intentionally and willfully caused by a responsible person, (3) by starting or maintaining a fire or causing an explosion, not as the result of accidental or natural causes. Bolden v. State, 568 So.2d 841 (Ala.Crim.App.1989).”). Cf. Bateman v. State, 408 So.2d 194, 197 (Ala.Crim.App.1981) (holding that a conviction for attempted arson was proper as a lesser-included offense of first-degree arson conviction where the jury was so charged because no actual damage was done to the building). However, the State argues that, despite the trial court's failure to charge the jury in this case as to the lesser-included offense of attempted arson, the State's evidence sufficiently proved all the elements of attempted arson in the first degree.
The fact that the appellant was ultimately found guilty of attempted kidnapping does not make the indictment void. "Under Alabama law there is no requirement that an indictment specify that a defendant attempted to commit a particular substantive offense for that defendant to be convicted of attempting to commit the offense. Bateman v. State, 408 So.2d 194 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981)." Reese v. State, 456 So.2d 341, 347 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982) (emphasis in original).
When defense counsel believes the court's oral charge is not complete, he must request written charges covering any missing principles of law. Bateman v. State, 408 So.2d 194 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981)." Smiley v. State, 435 So.2d 202 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983).
"Because the appellant failed to submit appropriate written charges on attempt to commit the crime charged, it was not error for the trial court to refuse to charge the jury on these possible lesser included offenses." Bateman v. State, 408 So.2d 194 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981). See Harville v. State, 386 So.2d 776 (Ala.Crim.App. 1980).
When defense counsel believes the court's oral charge is not complete, he must request written charges covering any missing principles of law. Bateman v. State, 408 So.2d 194 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981). § 12-16-13, Code of Alabama 1975 states: "Charges moved for by either party must be in writing . . ." From our examination of the record, we cannot find that appellant submitted a written requested charge on assault.