DENECKE, J. (Pro tempore)
The defendant was found guilty of attempted rape. No motion for a directed verdict was made to the trial court. Nevertheless, the defendant now asserts in his only assignment of error that the trial court should have directed a verdict of acquittal.
State v. Kloss, 222 Or. 237, 352 P.2d 732 (1960), reiterated that even in a criminal case the alleged erroneous rulings of the trial court will not be reviewed unless the alleged error was called to the trial court's attention by the appropriate procedure. Certain types of alleged errors in capital cases are an exception. State of Oregon v. Nodine, 198 Or. 679, 687, 259 P.2d 1056 (1953). Here, it is urged that an acquittal should have been directed because of alleged insufficiency of proof of venue and of an essential element of the crime, intent to commit rape. The above-stated principle is applicable when such alleged insufficiencies of proof are urged in support of the assignment of error. State ex rel Ricco v. Biggs, 198 Or. 413, 428, 255 P.2d 1055, 38 ALR2d 720 (1953); State of Oregon v. Moore, 194 Or. 232, 239, 241 P.2d 455 (1952).
We adhere to the principle reaffirmed in State v. Kloss, supra. The error assigned not having been brought to the attention of the trial court, it will not be considered. Appellant's counsel did not represent defendant in the court below.
AFFIRMED.