606 So.2d 156 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992), 2910210, J.E.B. v. State ex rel. T.B.
|Citation:||606 So.2d 156|
|Opinion Judge:||L. CHARLES WRIGHT, Retired Appellate Judge.|
|Party Name:||J.E.B. v. STATE of Alabama ex rel. T.B.|
|Attorney:||John F. Porter III of Livingston, Porter & Paulk, P.C., Scottsboro, for appellant. William Prendergast and Lois Brasfield, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.|
|Case Date:||June 05, 1992|
|Court:||Alabama Court of Civil Appeals|
Rehearing Denied July 17, 1992.
Certiorari Denied Oct. 23, 1992 Alabama Supreme Court 1911717.
John F. Porter III of Livingston, Porter & Paulk, P.C., Scottsboro, for appellant.
William Prendergast and Lois Brasfield, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
L. CHARLES WRIGHT, Retired Appellate Judge.
The State of Alabama, on behalf of T.B. (mother), filed a complaint for paternity and child support against J.E.B. (father) in the District Court of Jackson County. After a hearing the district court entered an order adjudicating paternity and ordered the father to pay child support. The father filed notice of appeal to the circuit court. A jury trial was held. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the mother. The trial court entered an order accordingly. The father appeals.
Initially the father asserts that the trial court erred in overruling the father's objection to the State's peremptory jury strikes based on his allegation that the State's strikes were based entirely on gender.
The father insists that the State improperly used its peremptory strikes to purposefully
eliminate men from the jury. He suggests that such actions were in violation of his rights to equal protection and due process. He requests that this court extend the Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), principle, which prohibits peremptory strikes based solely upon race, to include gender-based strikes.
This issue has previously been addressed by the court of criminal appeals and the supreme court. Fisher v. State, 587 So.2d 1027 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied 587 So.2d 1039 (Ala.1991); Daniels v. State, 581 So.2d 536 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), cert. denied 581 So.2d 541 (Ala.1991); Dysart v. State, 581 So.2d 541 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), cert. denied 581 So.2d 545 (Ala.1991). The supreme court recently revisited the issue in Ex parte Murphy, 596 So.2d 45 (Ala.1992), and declined to extend the Batson principle to gender-based strikes. We must follow the decisions of the supreme court. § 12-3-16, Code 1975.
The father next contends that the blood test results should have been excluded because the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody. He specifically asserts that the phlebotomist's failure to testify was fatal to the admissibility of the blood test results.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP