Code, Tit. 15, §§ 207, 328, 333. Objections to alleged improper argument of solicitor must be specific. Jordan v. State, ante, p. 172, 24 So.2d 138; Armour Co. v. Cartledge, 234 Ala. 644, 176 So. 334. CARR, Judge.
SIMPSON, Justice. Petition of Andrew Jordan for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in the case of Jordan v. State, 24 So.2d 138. Writ denied.
A party cannot justly complain of the action of the trial court in overruling an objection to argument based solely on an invalid ground. Harris v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 333 So.2d 894 (1976); Jordan v. State, 32 Ala. App. 172, 24 So.2d 138, cert. denied, 247 Ala. 304, 24 So.2d 140 (1946). We have carefully reviewed the record and finding no error are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.
Such objection to improper argument of solicitor must be specific. Jordan v. State, 32 Ala. App. 172, 24 So.2d 138 (5). Remarks deemed objectionable should be fully quoted, or substantially so, in an objection to argument. Title 13, Section 262; McClary v. State, 291 Ala. 481, 282 So.2d 384 (2).
We cannot, from this meager excerpt, arbitrate the proper innuendo. Jordan v. State, 32 Ala. App. 172, 24 So.2d 138. The tenth proposition arose thus:
There is therefore no basis on which to rationally review the ruling on the objection to which an exception was reserved. Warren v. State, 32 Ala. App. 302, 25 So.2d 695; Jordan v. State, 32 Ala. App. 172, 24 So.2d 138. The record being free of error substantially affecting the material rights of this appellant this cause is ordered affirmed.
Knott v. State, 19 Ala. App. 258, 96 So. 731; Mills v. State, 21 Ala. App. 46, 104 So. 889; Hawkins v. State, 29 Ala. App. 221, 195 So. 762. Relevancy and competency of evidence is for the trial court. Whetstone v. State, 19 Ala. App. 331, 98 So. 216; Ward v. State, 4 Ala. App. 112, 58 So. 788. As to argument to the solicitor, there is nothing on which to base a decision, the particular objectionable matter not being properly identified or pointed out. Sullivan v. State, 23 Ala. App. 210, 119 So. 243; Jordan v. State, Ante, p. 172, 24 So.2d 138; Id., Ala.Sup., 24 So.2d 140; Mayo v. State, Ante, p. 264, 24 So.2d 769; Naugher v. State, 241 Ala. 91, 1 So.2d 294; Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 95 So. 171. To constitute reversible error the statement of the solicitor must have been made as a fact and the fact so stated be unsupported by the evidence.
An objection not addressed to the specific remarks of the argument was properly overruled. Jordan v. State, ante, p. 172, 24 So.2d 138. We are of the opinion that the argument of the solicitor did not come within the inhibited scope of legitimate discussion, or transcend the legitimate boundary of such discussion.