Summary
holding following to be race-neutral reasons: veniremember's uncle had been falsely prosecuted; veniremember's nephew was a defendant in a burglary case; veniremember had a family member who had been charged with a crime; veniremember had been charged with DUI; veniremember had been prosecuted for various offenses
Summary of this case from Cunningham v. StateOpinion
88-434.
June 16, 1989.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals (3 Div. 755).
David G. Flack, Rick A. Williams and William R. Blanchard, Montgomery, for petitioner.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and J. Thompson Leverette, Asst. Gen., for respondent.
The facts of this case are thoroughly presented in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Powell v. State, 548 So.2d 590 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988). We granted certiorari to examine the holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals that Powell's arrest was based upon probable cause and was lawful; because the issue of the legality of Powell's arrest will be an issue in his retrial, we wanted to rule upon that issue now.
After carefully examining the record, the arguments of the parties, and the opinion below, we are the opinion that the holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals as to the legality of the arrest is correct. Therefore, that holding is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, ALMON, SHORES, ADAMS, HOUSTON, STEAGALL and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.