Opinion
8 Div. 118.
June 30, 1931. Rehearing Denied August 4, 1931.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County; Jas. E. Horton, Judge.
Frank Owen was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Owen v. State, 223 Ala. 467, 137 So. 311.
T. C. Almon, of Decatur, for appellant.
Brief did not reach the reporter.
Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
If there is sufficient evidence to afford an inference adverse to the appellant, the general affirmative charge is not proper. Hargrove v. State, 147 Ala. 97, 41 So. 972, 119 Am. St. Rep. 60, 10 Ann. Cas. 1126. The refusal of a correct charge is not error where the same principle of law is substantially given to the jury in other charges. Code 1923, § 9507. Charges not based on all the evidence are not proper. Hadley v. State, 23 Ala. App. 382, 125 So. 899; Parris v. State, 18 Ala. App. 240, 90 So. 808; Rikard v. State, 209 Ala. 480, 96 So. 412. A charge based on the exclusion of every reasonable supposition but that of defendant's guilt is properly refused. Brasher v. State, 21 Ala. App. 255, 107 So. 230; Ward v. State, 21 Ala. App. 551, 109 So. 897; Prince v. State, 215 Ala. 276, 110 So. 407.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of murder in the second degree, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of ten years.
There are but few questions apparent calling for comment.
Requested written charges not predicated on a consideration of all the evidence in the case are always properly refused. Hadley v. State, 23 Ala. App. 382, 125 So. 899; Parris v. State, 18 Ala. App. 240, 90 So. 808; Rikard v. State, 209 Ala. 480, 96 So. 412; Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179.
Appellant's written requested charges 1, 4, 5, and 6 were of this type, and were refused without error.
His written, requested, and refused charge 24 was properly refused because of the use of the word "supposition." Brasher v. State, 21 Ala. App. 255, 107 So. 230.
The evidence as to appellant's guilt vel non was conflicting. Hence, there was no error in refusing the requested general affirmative charge, to find in his favor.
Written refused charge 9, requested by appellant, was properly refused because of its omission, as a predicate, of some of the essential elements of self-defense.
We discover no prejudicial error in any of the rulings on the taking of testimony, each of which involved only an elementary proposition of law. And there being none in the record, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.