Court Opinion

ID: 9933165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:41:40.456558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:55.616537
License: Public Domain

I write to voice my concern about this Court's reviewing matters that were not presented for a ruling by the trial court.
The Court upholds the defendants' Batson challenge on the ground that the reasons articulated by the Jacksons' attorney for striking M.H. were pretextual and that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling to the contrary. While I agree that the reasons provided in the analysis of this question would require the court to grant the Batson challenge, I am concerned that the defendants did not at trial challenge the reasons given by the Jacksons' attorney and bring them to the attention of the trial court.
This Court recently stated in Ex parte Davidson, [Ms. 1980430, February 11, 2000] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala. 2000):
 "Our review of the record indicates that some of the reasons given by the prosecutor for striking black veniremembers were suspect and that some of the reasons could have been pretextual. However, Davidson did not challenge these reasons and did not bring them to the trial court's attention. The trial court should not now be held in error based on claims that were never presented for its review."
___ So.2d at ___. It appears that the Court today does not apply the rule expressed in Davidson, i.e., the rule that the trial court will not be held in error based on claims not presented for its review. I write to express my concern for the lack of consistency in our review ofBatson challenges.
Johnstone, J., concurs.