Alabama follows the general rule. See, e.g., Wiggins v. State, 244 Ala. 246, 12 So.2d 758 (1943); Harris v. State, 356 So.2d 247 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978); Smith v. State, 21 Ala. App. 497, 109 So. 530 (1926); Hammond v. State, 21 Ala. App. 434, 109 So. 172 (1926). The principle underlying the rule is that a general sentence has presumably been awarded and should be attributed to the count or counts, as the case may be, which will support it. Wiggins v. State; 24 C.J.S., supra, at ยง 1567(4).
Accomplices are generally competent as witnesses for the prosecution in this state. Odiorne v. State, 249 Ala. 375, 31 So.2d 132 (1947); Marler v. State, 67 Ala. 55 (1880); Hammond v. State, 21 Ala. App. 434, 109 So. 172 (1926). However, in the case of persons jointly indicted, the rule in Alabama is that neither is a competent witness for or against the other unless there has been an order of severance, a nolle prosequi, or a verdict of acquittal entered in favor of the one offered as a witness.
Bosarge v. State, 23 Ala. App. 18, 121 So. 427; Id., 280 U.S. 568, 50 S.Ct. 26, 74 L.Ed. 621; 36 C. J. 972. The question of credibility and weight of evidence are for the jury. Brooks v. State, 15 Ala. App. 525, 74 So. 85. Where the affirmative charge is not requested and no motion for new trial is made, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence is not presented. Hammond v. State, 21 Ala. App. 434, 109 So. 172; Bentley v. State, 22 Ala. App. 101, 112 So. 810. The statute is valid. A state may regulate or prohibit fishing within its waters.