of abuse of discretion, and this Court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling.’ ” Reynolds v. City of Birmingham, 723 So.2d 822, 824 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (quoting Hall v. State, 348 So.2d 870, 875 (Ala.Crim.App.1977), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 875 (Ala.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1021, 98 S.Ct. 745, 54 L.Ed.2d 768 (1978)). First, the appellant argues that jurors S.M. and M.L. committed misconduct when they did not respond during voir dire examination to the questions asking whether any members of the venire knew him. However, he did not allege in his motion for a new trial or during the hearing on the motion that S.M. or M.L. knew him. Accordingly, this argument is not properly before this court. See Marshall v. State, 629 So.2d 766 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). Second, the appellant argues that jurors S.M.
holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling motion for new trial on perjury grounds holding that notice must state the specific grounds for the departure holding that where specific grounds for an objection are stated at trial all other grounds are waived and will not be considered for the first time on appeal holding that to establish grounds for reversal an appellant must challenge all grounds on which the trial court ruled against it