# Ex Parte Marek

> Supreme Court of Alabama · September 8, 1989 · 556 So. 2d 375

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9931710

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Vincent Lee Marek. (Re Vincent Lee Marek v. State of Alabama).
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** September 8, 1989
- **Citations:** 556 So. 2d 375; 1989 WL 124533
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Maddox
- **Judges:** Adams, Maddox
- **Cited by:** 74 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9931710

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the doctrine of stare decisis does not render the courts helpless to correct their past errors

## Opinion text

The majority admittedly changes the law by holding that a motion for mistrial is a substitute for an objection. The law prior to this time had unequivocally held that a motion for mistrial is no substitute for an objection. Hunt v. State , 453 So.2d 1083 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Farley v. State , 437 So.2d 639 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983).
It is obvious that counsel for the defendant, in his motion for mistrial, based his objection upon the failure of the State to produce in response to a pretrial request a "tacit admission" of the defendant. In my opinion, objections to the introduction of evidence should be specific enough that the trial judge knows upon what ground the objection is based. Clearly, a trial judge should not be put in error for overruling the motion for mistrial, which was based upon one legal ground, and have counsel for defendant argue on appeal an entirely different ground for the rejection of the evidence.
Based on these reasons, I must respectfully dissent.
KENNEDY, J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9931710. Public record. Not legal advice.