Keener v. State
| Decision Date | 24 June 1977 |
| Citation | 347 So.2d 398 |
| Parties | Jeffrey Mac KEENER v. STATE of Alabama. SC 2388. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Leon Garmon, Gadsden, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. and Vanzetta Penn Durant, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This proceeding to determine the paternity of an illegitimate child was brought under the provisions of Title 27, § 12(1)-(9), Code of Alabama. The cause was tried to a jury which returned a verdict finding that the defendant was the father of the child. The trial court then ordered the defendant to pay $25.00 per week to support the child.
The defendant appealed and asserts two arguments which he says require a reversal.
In his opening statement, the attorney for the state stated to the jury:
On appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court should be reversed for refusing to order a mistrial because of the state's reference to a blood test.
The record shows that the trial judge told the defendant's attorney that he was ". . . going to instruct the Jury to disregard any reference to any blood test and hope to cure it that way, but I'm not going to declare a mistrial."
The defendant strongly objected to the trial court's so instructing the jury and objected to the state's attorney withdrawing any reference to the blood test from the jury's consideration. Clearly, under our cases, had the trial judge instructed the jury to disregard the remarks of the state's attorney making reference to a blood test, such instruction would have had the effect of eradicating any harm that might have been caused by the remark. Birmingham Electric Co. v. Guess, 222 Ala. 280, 131 So. 883 (1930); Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Cain, 217 Ala. 301, 116 So. 154 (1928). The defendant, however, expressly objected to the court's so instructing the jury, standing on his contention that the harm could not be eradicated by an admonition from the court to the jury to disregard the remark.
We cannot agree. True, the test for determining whether a statement made during trial is so highly prejudicial as to require a mistrial is whether the prejudicial effect or tendency of the remark can be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte CV
...a child until his paternity of the child had been established. Ex parte State of California, 669 So.2d 884 (Ala.1995). See Keener v. State, 347 So.2d 398 (Ala.1977), Upton v. State, 255 Ala. 594, 52 So.2d 824 (1951), and Law v. State, 238 Ala. 428, 191 So. 803 (1939). Therefore, the father ......
-
C.V. v. J.M.J.
...child until his paternity of the child had been established. Ex parte State of California, 669 So. 2d 884 (Ala. 1995). See Keener v. State, 347 So. 2d 398 (Ala. 1977), Upton v. State, 255 Ala. 594, 52 So. 2d 824 (1951), and Law v. State, 238 Ala. 428, 191 So. 803 (1939). Therefore, the fath......
-
State ex rel. Toryak v. Spagnuolo, 14939
... ... Pope v. Kincaid, 99 W.Va. 677, 129 S.E. 752 (1925). The majority of other jurisdictions in this country, likewise, hold that paternity proceedings are civil suits to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Keener v ... State, 347 So.2d 398 (Ala.1977); Huntingdon v. Crowley, 51 Cal.Rptr. 254, 64 Cal.2d 647, 414 P.2d 382 (1966); People ex rel. Staples v. Prude, 18 Ill.App.3d 269, 309 N.E.2d 670 (1974); State v. Stevens, 279 Minn. 390, 157 N.W.2d 52 (1968); Snay v. Snarr, 195 Neb. 375, 238 N.W.2d 234 ... ...
-
State ex rel. McGuire v. Howe
...17 Ohio App.3d 228, 479 N.E.2d 291 (1984) (since Legislature characterized the action as civil, burden is preponderance); Keener v. State, 347 So.2d 398, 401 (Ala.1977) (though the state brings the action, a paternity proceeding is civil in nature and burden of proof is the same as in any c......