commit error in Alabama

2003And, as a direct consequence thereof, was the jury affected, adversely, by the admission of tests results, thereby denying appellant of a fair trial." Coulliette cited Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013 (D.C.

2003And, as a direct consequence thereof, was the jury affected, adversely, by the admission of tests results, thereby denying appellant of a fair trial." Coulliette cited Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013 (D.C.

1996There was no motion for a judgment of acquittal and there was no other motion, objection, or request seeking similar relief." Ryans v. State , 629 So.2d 799 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993); cert. denied.

1917Co. v. Allen’s Adm’r, 78 Ala. 494 . [4] Did the court commit error in sustaining plaintiff’s objection to the question propounded to the witness, Hickey, 'by the defendant, on cross-examination: “Was that steam shovel at that time being operated with the front of it any higher than is ordinary in the operation of steam shovels by well-regulated companies of this character?” While a witness is presumed to be competent unless the contrary is made to appear, he is not presumed to be qualified by knowledge, and his proponent must show that the witness has such knowledge if it does not otherwise ap

1915The relevancy of this evidence was not apparent at the time it was so offered, and the court properly declined to let it in until later, when defendant offered some evidence tending to show that the shooting was an accident and tending to- connect the scar with such accident. (6, 7) Nor did the court commit error in sustaining the state’s objection to this question propounded to defendant, as a witness for himself, by his counsel, to wit, “Did you shoot deceased on purpose?” since, though the state might have asked such question on cross-examination, it was not permissible for defendant’s coun

1915Nor did the court commit error in refusing written charge 9. —Gus Moore v. State, infra, 67 South. 789 .

1902Nor did the court commit an error in sustaining the objection to the question propounded to the defendant, “In the. land dispute you were successful, weren’t you?” The merits of that controversy between Cochran, who was alleged to have been assaulted by defendant, and the defendant were immaterial. —Commander v. The State, 60 Ala. 1 ; Gray v. The State, 63 Ala. 66 ; 1 Mayfield’s Dig., 331, §§ 377 et seq.

1902Nor did the court commit an error in sustaining the objection to the question propounded to the defendant, “In the. land dispute you were successful, weren’t you?” The merits of that controversy between Cochran, who was alleged to have been assaulted by defendant, and the defendant were immaterial. —Commander v. The State, 60 Ala. 1 ; Gray v. The State, 63 Ala. 66 ; 1 Mayfield’s Dig., 331, §§ 377 et seq.

1902Charge 5 refused to defendant is a substantial copy of charge 13 in Gilmore v. The State, 99 Ala. 154 , which this court held should have been given.