 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fitch v. State8/31/2001
HE COURT: All right.
"MR. BAXLEY: One of them is an alternate. They had 16 absolute strikes.
"THE COURT: All right. And on the -- how many blacks were on the -- what's the black/white breakdown of the total venire?
"THE CLERK: Seventeen blacks on the -- out of 46.
"THE COURT: All right. And the makeup of the jury is what black/white? The jury that's going to sit on this case.
"THE CLERK: Six blacks and eight whites.
"THE COURT: All right. But now how many -- not counting the alternates?
"MR. MCCOOL [the prosecution]: Six blacks, six whites.
"THE COURT: Is that correct?
"THE CLERK: Right.
"THE COURT: All right. Based on the evidence before the Court, the Defendant has not made a prima facie showing. So, that motion is denied." R. 365-67.
"`A defendant making a Batson challenge bears the burden of proving a prima facie case of purposeful or intentional discrimination and, in the absence of such proof, the prosecution is not required to state its reasons for its peremptory challenges. Ex parte Branch, 526 So. 2d 609, 622 (Ala. 1987).
"`....
"Procedurally, the party alleging racial discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Ex parte Branch, 526 So. 2d 609, 622 (Ala. 1987). `"It is important that the defendant come forward with facts, not just numbers alone, when asking the (trial) court to find a prima facie case."' Mitchell v. State, 579 So. 2d 45, 48 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991), cert. denied, 596 So. 2d 954 (Ala.1992), quoting United States v. Moore, 895 F.2d 484, 485 (8th Cir. 1990)." McElmore v. State, [Ms. CR-98-2212, March 31, 2000] So. 2d, (Ala.Crim.App. 2000).
"`A trial court's ruling on a Batson objection is entitled to great deference, and we will not reverse the trial court's Batson ruling unless it is clearly erroneous. Ex parte Branch, 526 So. 2d 609 (Ala. 1987).'" McElmore v. State, So. 2d at , (quoting Pressley v. State, 770 So. 2d 143, 144 (Ala. 2000).
Fitch offered only numbers, no facts, to support his claim that the principles of Batson had been violated. The trial court correctly ruled that the evidence before the Court did not establish a prima facie showing of purposeful or intentional discrimination by the State in its implementation of peremptory strikes. Thus, the trial court correctly denied the Batson motion.
IV.
Fitch contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a thorough cross-examination of Hugh Raymond Evans III, assistant director and general counsel for the Alabama Ethics Commission, by the trial court's refusal to allow Fitch to introduce into evidence Advisory Opinion 97-97. The opinion was drafted by Evans for an unrelated case, and it was written after the ethics law was amended in 1995.
Fitch did not object at trial on grounds that he was being denied a thorough and sifting cross-examination by the trial court's denial to admit the ethics opinion authored by Evans into evidence. Instead, he argued only that the document was relevant to, and admissible in, this case, that he was not informed that this witness would testify, and that the trial court had refused earlier in the trial to allow Fitch to enter the opinion into evidence. "Because the grounds raised on appeal are different from those advanced at trial, this issue was not properly preserved for appellate review." Hyde v. State, 778 So. 2d 199, 216 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998), aff'd, Ex parte Hyde, 778 So. 2d 239 (Ala. 2000). A "statement of specific grounds of objection waives all grounds not sp
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|