Prescott v. State

It is first insisted that the court erred in‘refusing to grant a new trial, because no proof was made of the venue. While this may be true, it is admitted that the defendant did not comply with circuit court rule 35, by bringing the omission to the attention of the trial court. Since the question was not properly raised on the trial, it cannot be raised for the first time on motion to set aside the verdict. Wadsworth v. State, 18 Ala. App. 352, 92 So. 245.

It is now insisted that the court erred in sustaining the state’s objection to the question propounded to a state’s witness on…