In Alabama, a prosecutor or defense attorney cannot use evidence of drug use to impeach a witness unless it is shown that the drugs affect the reliability of the witness's testimony. See Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143, 1147 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989). Moreover, "[t]he credibility of a witness may be impeached by proving mental derangement or insanity but only if such mental incapacity exists at the time the witness takes the stand to testify or at the time he observed the facts to which he has testified on direct."
Because it is being raised for the first time on appeal, there is no adverse ruling for this court to review. Leonard v. State, 551 So. 2d 1143, 1146 (Ala. Cr. App.), cert. denied, 551 So.2d 1143 [(Ala. 1989)]."). A review of the cases cited above reflects that this Court has reviewed a ruling on a motion to consolidate when a defendant had made either a specific objection to the motion or moved that the cases be severed pursuant to Rule 13.4, Ala. R. Crim. P.
Because it is being raised for the first time on appeal, there is no adverse ruling for this court to review. Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143, 1146 (Ala. Cr. App.), cert. denied, 551 So.2d 1143 (Ala. Cr. App. 1991)."). A review of the cases cited above reflects that this Court has reviewed a ruling on a motion to consolidate when a defendant had made either a specific objection to the motion or moved that the cases be severed pursuant to Rule 13.4, Ala. R. Crim. P.
Because it is being raised for the first time on appeal, there is no adverse ruling for this court to review. Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143, 1146 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 551 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). IV.
[C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 426.01(11) (4th ed. 1991)]." Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143, 1151-52 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989). Furthermore, the objection that was interposed was untimely.
"A defendant is bound by the grounds of objection raised at trial and cannot change them on appeal." Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143, 1151 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989). Moreover, "[t]he statement of specific grounds of objection waives all grounds not specified and the trial court will not be put in error on grounds not assigned at trial."
A defendant is bound by the grounds of objection raised at trial and cannot change them on appeal." Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143, 1151 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989). Therefore, Lynch did not preserve[] these claims, and they are not properly before this Court for review.
As the Court of Criminal Appeals and the defendants point out, this issue has reached the appellate level in a number of cases from Montgomery County. See Parker v. State, 568 So.2d 335 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990); Wagner v. State, 555 So.2d 1141 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989); Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989); Powell v. State, 548 So.2d 590 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988); Williams v. State, 530 So.2d 881 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988); Williams v. State, 548 So.2d 501 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988); and Acres v. State, 548 So.2d 459 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987). Four of these cases were reversed because of a violation of Batson and Branch.
A random selection of recent national cases should highlight the need for proper assertion of defense counsel responsibility by objecting to claimed improprieties by the prosecuting attorney. See Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), inadequate objection to preserve error alleged in final objection about production of tangible items as possible evidence and Minnick v. State, 551 So.2d 77 (Miss. 1988), contended improper argument, both in guilt and penalty phase, to be either waived or not considered to be prejudicial.
Thus, Investigator Luker did not offer expert scientific testimony, and the State was not required to establish his qualifications as an expert in blood-spatter analysis. See Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143, 1146 (Ala.Crim.App.1989) (reaffirmance that lay witnesses may identify a substance as blood); Gavin, 891 So.2d at 967–70 (holding that it was not error to allow lay testimony that “the blood flow coming from the body ran away from the area of the seat that [defendant] would have been seated in”).