’ " ' " 727 So.2d at 874 (quoting Hampton v. State, 620 So.2d 99, 103 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), quoting in turn McDonald v. State, 340 So.2d 80, 83 (Ala.Crim.App.1976) ). The Blakleys complain that the trial judge commented, in ruling on an objection: "I don't remember it that way.
"'"In 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law § 993, p. 1024, it is said, 'Generally, it is not improper comment on the evidence for the judge to explain his ruling on a matter of law, and he may refer to testimony and state its legal effect, in deciding a point raised during trial.'"' "Hampton v. State, 620 So.2d 99, 103 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), quoting McDonald v. State, 340 So.2d 80, 83 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 340 So.2d 84 (Ala. 1976). Here, the trial court's comment was made when overruling Bryant's objection to a portion of Crow's testimony, and was offered merely as an explanation of the court's ruling on the objection.
In Hampton v. State, 620 So.2d 99 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), this Court held that the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence an examining physician's opinion that the injuries of the rape victim were "consistent with . . . [f]orcible intercourse." In this case, Neer frankly conceded the limitations of his testimony.
In fact, the victim is allowed to testify to the ultimate issue of the case. See Hampton v. State, 620 So.2d 99 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992) (holding that conclusory expert testimony that injuries were consistent with forcible intercourse did not invade the province of the jury). See also Moss v. State, 545 So.2d 230 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989).
"`In 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law § 993, p. 1024, it is said, "Generally, it is not improper comment on the evidence for the judge to explain his ruling on a matter of law, and he may refer to testimony and state its legal effect, in deciding a point raised during trial."'"Hampton v. State, 620 So.2d 99, 103 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), quoting McDonald v. State, 340 So.2d 80, 83 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 340 So.2d 84 (Ala. 1976). Here, the trial court's comment was made when overruling Bryant's objection to a portion of Crow's testimony, and was offered merely as an explanation of the court's ruling on the objection.
Our review reveals "no evidence . . . that defense counsel was admonished without cause or that he was treated more severely than counsel for the state." Hampton v. State, 620 So.2d 99, 104-105 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992). Moreover, the trial court instructed the jurors to disregard the remarks between the trial court and counsel and questioned them to ensure that they could disregard the remarks, "thus ensuring that no prejudice resulted from [the] remark[s]."
Therefore, assuming the appellant has a right to complain about one of the prosecutor's remarks, we find that any error was cured by the court's instructions. Hampton v. State, 620 So.2d 99, 101 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992). Cf. Covington v. State, 620 So.2d 122 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993).
Those crimes may, under certain circumstances, constitute lesser included offenses of kidnapping. See Ex parte Pettiway, 539 So.2d 372 (Ala. 1988) (unlawful imprisonment a lesser included offense of kidnapping); Hampton v. State, 620 So.2d 99 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992) (same). See also Ex parte Staten, [Ms. 1911114, August 14, 1992] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala. 1992) (assault a lesser included offense of attempted kidnapping).