State v. Green, 359 Mo. 839, 224 S.W.2d 111; Angus v. Angus, 225 S.W.2d 759; Gershon v. Ashkanazie, 239 Mo. App. 807, 199 S.W.2d 38; Sutton v. Gilbert, 193 S.W.2d 928. A. The State did not prove the corpus delicti. State v. Bennett, 6 S.W.2d 881; Allen v. Newton, 219 Mo. App. 74, 226 S.W. 327; State v. Dashman, 153 Mo. 454, 55 S.W. 69; Caldwell v. Barnsdall Refining Corp., 150 S.W.2d 504; People v. Munday, 280 Ill. 32, 117 N.E. 286; Whited v. State, 27 Ala. App. 466, 174 So. 545; State v. Dworkin, 271 S.W. 477; Costello v. U.S., 93 F.2d 412 (C.C.A. 8th Mo.); Chlanda v. St. Louis Transit Co., 213 Mo. 244, 112 S.W. 249; Schroer v. Brooks, 204 Mo. App. 567, 224 S.W. 53; People v. Cosad, 1 N.Y.S.2d 132 . B. The State did not prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Caldwell v. Barnsdall Refining Corp., 150 S.W.2d 504; State v. Dashman, 135 Mo. 454, 55 S.W. 69; Allen v. Newton, 219 Mo. App. 74, 226 S.W. 327; State v. Dworkin, 271 S.W. 477; State v. Wooland, 111 Mo. 248, 20 S.W. 27; State v. Smith, 309 Mo. 38, 293 S.W. 498; People v. Munday, 280 Ill. 32, 117 N.E. 286; Whited v. State, 27 Ala. App. 466, 174 So. 545; Costello v. U.S., 93 F.2d 412 (C.C.A 8th Mo.); State v. Bennett, 6 S.W.2d 881. 3.
However, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is not presented, as the affirmative charge was not requested nor was there a motion for a new trial, or motion to exclude the evidence. Whited v. State, 27 Ala. App. 466, 174 So. 545; Henson v. State, 25 Ala. App. 118, 141 So. 718. SIMPSON, Judge.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not presented for our review, since there was no motion to exclude the state's evidence, no request for the affirmative charge and no motion for a new trial. Whited v. State, 27 Ala. App. 466, 174 So. 545; Parker v. State, 37 Ala. App. 169, 65 So.2d 215; Madison v. State, 32 Ala. App. 617, 28 So.2d 927. During the solicitor's argument to the jury the following occurred:
The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction is not before us since there was no motion to exclude the evidence, no request for the affirmative charge, and no motion for a new trial. Williams v. State, 31 Ala. App. 48, 11 So.2d 870; Pointer v. State, 37 Ala. App. 670, 74 So.2d 615; Ragland v. State, 37 Ala. App. 542, 71 So.2d 535; Chambers v. State, 31 Ala. App. 269, 15 So.2d 743, certiorari denied 245 Ala. 113, 15 So.2d 744; Lockwood v. State, 33 Ala. App. 337, 33 So.2d 401; Whited v. State, 27 Ala. App. 466, 174 So. 545. Defendant's sole insistence of error in brief is predicated upon the testimony of the witnesses Mosely and Shaw.
There is no necessity for our detailing the facts in the case, since the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction is not presented for our review by the request for the affirmative charge, motion to exclude the evidence or motion for a new trial. Williams v. State, 31 Ala. App. 48, 11 So.2d 870; Chambers v. State, 31 Ala. App. 269, 15 So.2d 742, certiorari denied 245 Ala. 113, 15 So.2d 744; Lockwood v. State, 33 Ala. App. 337, 33 So.2d 401; Whited v. State, 27 Ala. App. 466, 174 So. 545. Defendant's sole insistence of error in brief is predicated upon the action of the trial court in overruling defendant's objections to the following statements made by the Solicitor in his argument to the jury:
The question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is not presented. The affirmative charge was not requested, neither was there a motion for a new trial, nor a motion to exclude the evidence. Whited v. State, 27 Ala. App. 466, 174 So. 545; Driggers v. State, 36 Ala. App. 637, 61 So.2d 865. We have not been favored with a brief for the defendant, but have carefully examined the record, as the law requires, and find no reversible error.
In this state of the record the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction is not before this court. Whited v. State, 27 Ala. App. 466, 174 So. 545; Dotson v. State, Ala.App., 43 So.2d 434; England v. State, 23 Ala. App. 393, 126 So. 174; Lockwood v. State, 33 Ala. App. 337, 33 So.2d 401. Ante, p. 59.
Wm. N. McQueen, Atty. Gen., and Geo. C. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. When affirmative charge is not requested, nor motion to exclude evidence or for new trial made, sufficiency of evidence to support verdict is not presented for review. Whited v. State, 27 Ala. App. 466, 174 So. 545; Henson v. State, 25 Ala. App. 118, 141 So. 718; Woodson v. State, 170 Ala. 87, 54 So. 191. BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.
Therefore, we respectfully submit that the sufficiency of the evidence is not presented on this appeal as the appellant did not ask for the affirmative charge and made no motion for a new trial. Adams v. State, 22 Ala. App. 310, 115 So. 862, certiorari denied 217 Ala. 273, 115 So. 863; Henson v. State, 25 Ala. App. 118, 141 So. 718; White v. State, 27 Ala. App. 466, 174 So. 585."