To be admissible, evidence of this kind must meet several requirements, one of which is that the evidence would have to be admissible if the third party was on trial. Lowrey v. State, 26 Ala. App. 159, 155 So. 313 (1934); Green v. State, 258 Ala. 471, 64 So.2d 84 (1953); Morris v. State, 25 Ala. App. 175, 142 So. 685 (1932). Also, the proffered evidence must relate to the "res gestae" of the crime — that is, it must be derived from and related to the facts and circumstances of the alleged crime.

Gipson v. State, 32 Ala. App. 259, 25 So.2d 390; Id., 247 Ala. 529, 25 So.2d 392; Jones v. State, 31 Ala. App. 378, 17 So.2d 545; King v. State, 233 Ala. 198, 171 So. 254. It was not permissible to impeach a person who did not take the stand as a witness. Davis v. State, 188 Ala. 59, 66 So. 67; Lowrey v. State, 26 Ala. App. 159, 155 So. 313; Ellis v. State, 18 Ala. App. 544, 93 So. 334; Baker v. State, 35 Ala. App. 596, 51 So.2d 376; Id., 255 Ala. 335, 51 So.2d 381. Statements or acts of third person in absence of accused are inadmissible, in absence of anything indicating a conspiracy and where statements and acts are not of the res gestae. Cox v. State, 240 Ala. 368, 199 So. 806; Evans v. State, 109 Ala. 11, 19 So. 535; Blair v. State, 211 Ala. 53, 99 So. 314; Howard v. State, 17 Ala. App. 464, 86 So. 172. Where an exhibit is properly introduced in evidence counsel for defendant should be allowed to display the exhibit to the jury and invite inspection of it by the jury and manipulation of it in the manner in which it was intended to be used. Fuller v. State, 147 Ala. 35, 41 So. 774; Mitchell v. State, 114 Ala. 1, 22 So. 71; Thorne v. State, 21 Ala. App. 57, 105 So. 709; Id., 213 Ala. 551, 105 So. 711. It was error to permit the state to introduce in evidence one pistol said to have been the property of deceased and w

This evidence must be of the type that would be admissible if that third party was on trial. Id.; Lowrey v. State, [ 26 Ala. App. 159, 155 So.2d 313 (Ala. 1934)]. This type of evidence `is particularly important where the State's case rests primarily upon circumstantial evidence.

Evidence of prior convictions was inadmissible. Mathews v. State, 21 Ala. App. 173, 106 So. 206; Coker v. State, 24 Ala. App. 248, 133 So. 748; Lowrey v. State, 26 Ala. App. 159, 155 So. 313; Bryant v. State, 33 Ala. App. 346, 33 So.2d 402. Evidence of different crime was not admissible. People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286, 62 L.R.A. 193.

It is clear that, by applying the provisions of Sec. 132, Title 29, Code 1940, the accused was not due the affirmative charge as to count two of the indictment. Lowrey v. State, 26 Ala. App. 159, 155 So. 313; Jackson v. State, 22 Ala. App. 409, 117 So. 156; Nugent v. State, 28 Ala. App. 182, 181 So. 707; Davis v. State, 24 Ala. App. 190, 132 So. 458. All that was said and done by the parties present while the raid was in progress and the arrests were being made constituted a part of the res gestae and was admissible in evidence.

Copeland v. State, 27 Ala. App. 405, 173 So. 407; Arrington v. State, 24 Ala. App. 233, 133 So. 592; Adams v. State, 22 Ala. App. 566, 118 So. 325; Sharp v. State, 22 Ala. App. 562, 118 So. 238; Id., 218 Ala. 168, 118 So. 239. The oral charge, taken as a whole and in connection with special given charges, correctly states the applicable law. The State made out a prima facie case, and the burden rested upon defendant of overcoming it. Higginbothan v. State, 24 Ala. App. 40, 129 So. 713; Reeves v. State, 19 Ala. App. 72, 95 So. 203; Reed v. State, 24 Ala. App. 243, 133 So. 745; Berry v. State, 24 Ala. App. 221, 133 So. 308; Code 1923, § 4657; Lowery v. State, 26 Ala. App. 159, 155 So. 313; Freeman v. State, 21 Ala. App. 629, 111 So. 188; Arthur v. State, 19 Ala. App. 311, 97 So. 158. It is not error to refuse charges substantially covered otherwise. Code, § 9509.