Morton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Morton v. State

409 So. 2d 968, 1981 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 2540

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedNovember 24, 1981

Docket6 Div. 553

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 409 So. 2d 968 (Morton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morton v. State, 409 So. 2d 968, 1981 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 2540 (Ala. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

B00K0UT, Judge.

Assault in the first degree; sentence: five years’ imprisonment.

Appellant contends the trial judge committed error by refusing to give four written requested charges dealing with the defense of self-defense. He contends the evidence would require giving a charge on self-defense. We are unable to make such a determination because the refused charges are not included in the record on appeal.

Our review is limited solely to matters appearing in the record. Smith v. State, 346 So.2d 465 (Ala.Cr.App.1976). We cannot rule on the correctness vei non of a ruling on documents not in the record. Barbosa v. State, 331 So.2d 811 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976); Mayes v. State, 350 So.2d 339 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). There is a strong presumption in favor of the correctness of the trial court’s rulings, and that presumption cannot be overcome unless we have an opportunity to review the matter upon which the trial court based its ruling.

Rule 10(f), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, prescribes the method to be used to correct the record in case of errors or omissions therein. The instant case was argued and submitted on the record without addition or amendment. We have reviewed all matters included in the record, and we find no error in the instant record as submitted to us.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

B00K0UT, Judge.

Assault in the first degree; sentence: five years’ imprisonment.

Appellant contends the trial judge committed error by refusing to give four written requested charges dealing with the defense of self-defense. He contends the evidence would require giving a charge on self-defense. We are unable to make such a determination because the refused charges are not included in the record on appeal.

Our review is limited solely to matters appearing in the record. Smith v. State, 346 So.2d 465 (Ala.Cr.App.1976). We cannot rule on the correctness vei non of a ruling on documents not in the record. Barbosa v. State, 331 So.2d 811 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976); Mayes v. State, 350 So.2d 339 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). There is a strong presumption in favor of the correctness of the trial court’s rulings, and that presumption cannot be overcome unless we have an opportunity to review the matter upon which the trial court based its ruling.

Rule 10(f), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, prescribes the method to be used to correct the record in case of errors or omissions therein. The instant case was argued and submitted on the record without addition or amendment. We have reviewed all matters included in the record, and we find no error in the instant record as submitted to us.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 So. 2d 968, 1981 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 2540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morton-v-state-alacrimapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack