Brock v. State

ANDERSON; Chief Justice.

Counsel for the petitioner, in brief, concede the correctness of the opinion of the Court of Appeals as to exceptions to things stated in the oral charge, but insist that the exception complained of was “not merely to something stated but mainly and directly to things not stated or improperly omitted by the trial court from its oral charge.”

“If the oral charge was not as full and instructive as plaintiff’s counsel desired, he could have requested the giving of written charges elucidating and explaining his theory of the case from a legal standpoint and urged error on…