Mitchell [v. State], 579 So. 2d [45] at 47 [(Ala. Crim. App. 1991)]." Gaston v. State, 581 So. 2d 548, 550 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). Accordingly, we find no Batson violation in regard to the State's strike of juror F.C. SeeGaston, 581 So. 2d at 550.
Trawick v. State, 698 So. 2d 151, 158 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995) ("A prospective juror's dissatisfaction with law enforcement constitutes a valid reason for striking that person. Gaston v. State, 581 So. 2d 548 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991)."). See Sharp v. State, [Ms. CR-05-2371, March 5, 2010] _ So. 3d _, _(Ala. Crim. App. 2010)("the courts have upheld challenges in cases where a juror was struck because he or she had a family member who was the victim of a violent crime.").
Trawick v. State, 698 So.2d 151, 158 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) (“A prospective juror's dissatisfaction with law enforcement constitutes a valid reason for striking that person. Gaston v. State, 581 So.2d 548 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).”).
The standard of review of the trial court's determination is high, and an appellate court may reverse the trial court's findings that the State's strikes were not motivated by intentional discrimination only if the trial court's findings are "clearly erroneous." Gaston v. State, 581 So.2d 548, 549 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Grider, supra. This Court notes that the appellant's jury was 75% black.
A prospective juror's dissatisfaction with law enforcement constitutes a valid reason for striking that person. Gaston v. State, 581 So.2d 548 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). The trial court found that the state's reasons for striking the prospective jurors were race-neutral.
The basis reasons given by the prosecutor for his strikes, as enunciated by the trial court have been held to be sufficiently race-neutral. See, e.g., Gaston v. State, 581 So.2d 548 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991) (potential jurors properly struck pursuant to their connections with law enforcement); Fisher v. State, 587 So.2d 1027 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), cert. denied, 587 So.2d 1039 (Ala. 1991) (potential juror struck where he indicated bias because the case involved capital punishment and stated that he was unsure whether he could set this bias aside). The United States Supreme Court has recently addressed the appellate evaluations to be given this issue and emphasized the deference to be paid to the trial court's determination because this matter concerns a "pure issue of fact."
Kelley, 602 So.2d at 476. See also Jackson v. State, 640 So.2d 1025 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992); Gaston v. State, 581 So.2d 548 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); McGahee v. State, 554 So.2d 454 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd, 554 So.2d 473 (Ala. 1989). The primary reason given for striking juror number 56 was also race neutral and therefore did not violate the principles of Batson.
We note that with the single exception of Walker v. State, 611 So.2d 1133 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), this Court has found that the peremptory strikes against black veniremembers exercised by this particular district attorney or his assistants have been race neutral. See Davis v. State, 593 So.2d 145, 147-48 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Henderson v. State, 584 So.2d 841, 845-47 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988) (death penalty case), 584 So.2d 862 (Ala. 1991); Gaston v. State, 581 So.2d 548, 549-50 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474, 485-486 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990) (death penalty case), affirmed, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886, 112 S.Ct. 242, 116 L.Ed.2d 197 (1991); Andujar v. State, 572 So.2d 1319, 1320-21 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); Beavers v. State, 565 So.2d 688, 690 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); Wilson v. State, 571 So.2d 1237, 1248-50 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989) (death penalty case), reversed on prosecutor's impermissible comment of defendant's right not to testify, 571 So.2d 1251 (Ala. 1990); Borden v. State, 523 So.2d 508, 510-11 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987). IX.
Review on appeal is limited to matters as to which adverse rulings have been invoked at the trial level. Hartley v. State, 598 So.2d 2 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Gaston v. State, 581 So.2d 548 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Donahoo v. State, 552 So.2d 887 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989). Further, at trial, the appellant objected to the receipt of the photographs only on the grounds that the state's suppression of them constituted noncompliance with his discovery request.
" 'Review on appeal is limited to matters on which rulings are invoked at the trial level.' " Gaston v. State, 581 So.2d 548, 550 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). Moreover, the appellant is not entitled to discover statements of prosecution witnesses.