Divine v. State, 285 Ala. 488, 234 So.2d 28. In Cunningham v. State, 47 Ala. App. 730, 261 So.2d 69, this Court held that even though the only evidence presented regarding the defendant's sanity at the time of the commission of the homicide was that of one physician who testified that in his opinion the defendant was not entitled to the affirmative charge on that ground. Citing George v. State, 240 Ala. 632, 200 So. 602, the Court continued:
Divine v. State, 285 Ala. 488, 234 So.2d 28. In Cunningham v. State, 47 Ala. App. 730, 261 So.2d 69, this Court held that even though the only evidence presented regarding the defendant's sanity at the time of the commission of the homicide was that of one physician who testified that in his opinion the defendant was not entitled to the affirmative charge on that ground. Citing George v. State, 240 Ala. 632, 200 So. 602, the Court continued:
Kizziah v. State, 42 Ala. App. 303, 305, 162 So.2d 889 (1964) (unexplained possession of part of a still prima facie evidence of violation of statute).Briggs v. State, 375 So.2d 530, 534 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979); Stiles v. State, 55 Ala. App. 374, 376, 315 So.2d 609 (1975); Sheppard v. State, 49 Ala. App. 400, 272 So.2d 605 (1973); Cunningham v. State, 47 Ala. App. 730, 734, 261 So.2d 69 (1972). In Tittle v. State, 252 Ala. 377, 379, 41 So.2d 295 (1949), it was held:
Appellant contends the State failed to prove a prima facie case. In Cunningham v. State, 47 Ala. App. 730, 261 So.2d 69 (1972), we find the following: "In Mount v. State, 32 Ala. App. 235, 24 So.2d 142, we find:
(Authorities herein cited.) In Cunningham v. State, 47 Ala. App. 730, 261 So.2d 69, we find this statement: ". . . The rule governing expert medical testimony on the issue of insanity has been stated by the Supreme Court of Alabama in George v. State, 240 Ala. 632, 200 So. 602, as follows:
Such evidence should be weighed by the jury along with all the other evidence in the case. Cunningham v. State, 47 Ala. App. 730, 261 So.2d 69 (1972). The affirmative charge is properly refused under such circumstances.
It was within the province of the jury to accept or reject such expert testimony. Hockenberry v. State, 246 Ala. 369, 20 So.2d 533; Carr v. State, 43 Ala. App. 642, 198 So.2d 791; Luster v. State, 45 Ala. App. 19, 221 So.2d 695; George v. State, 240 Ala. 632, 200 So. 602; Cunningham v. State, 47 Ala. App. 730, 261 So.2d 69. After considering all the evidence presented, we conclude that it was sufficient to support the verdict under the rule in Bridges v. State, 284 Ala. 412, 225 So.2d 821.
Moreover, the jurors did not overhear the conversations between the attorneys and the prospective witnesses. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the trial court correctly determined that no injury or prejudice to the appellant occurred, and the motion for a mistrial was properly denied. Cunningham v. State, 47 Ala. App. 730, 261 So.2d 69, and authorities therein cited. IV