The partial or total failure or omission of a trial court to instruct a jury in its oral charge with reference to principles or rules of law that may be, or even are, involved in the trial cannot be made the basis for a reviewable question on appeal. Williams v. State, 147 Ala. 10, 41 So. 992; Jones v. State, 174 Ala. 85, 57 So. 36. The party's remedy in such cases of mere failure or omission is to request special written instructions. McPherson v. State, 198 Ala. 5, 73 So. 387; Rice v. State, 18 Ala. App. 366, 92 So. 81; Norris v. State, 229 Ala. 226, 156 So. 556; Peterson v. State, 227 Ala. 361, 150 So. 156. We express no opinion as to whether under the facts here presented the trial court should have charged on the law of manslaughter in the second degree.

The State has the burden to prove a causal connection between injuries inflicted by a defendant and the death of a decedent, but such proof may be established by circumstances as well as by direct proof. If there is any proof, direct or circumstantial, to establish the corpus delicti, the sufficiency of such proof is for the jury and not for the Court. Cook v. State, 43 Ala. App. 304, 189 So.2d 595; McCall v. State, 262 Ala. 414, 79 So.2d 51; Rice v. State, 18 Ala. App. 366, 92 So. 81. A formal predicate is not necessary (though as a matter of caution it is always advisable) when the circumstances testified to, affirmatively show no improper inducements, that is, when the circumstances indicate pretty clearly that, according to the common probabilities of experience, the confession was not improperly induced. Ison v. State, Ala., 200 So.2d 511.