WORKS v. STATE

McMILLAN, Judge.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

PATTERSON and MONTIEL, JJ., concur.

BOWEN, P.J., and TAYLOR, J., dissent with opinion.

BOWEN, Presiding Judge, dissenting.

I dissent from the majority's holding in its unpublished memorandum that the appellant's objection to the chain of custody was not specific and was too general to preserve the issue for appellate review. This was essentially the same argument rejected by a majority of the Supreme Court of Alabama in Ex parte Garrett, 608 So.2d 337, 338 n. 2 (Ala. 1992). Under that case, the objection in this case was sufficient to preserve the issue for review.

TAYLOR, Judge, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority's holding in its unpublished memorandum. When defense counsel makes an objection based on the chain of custody, that objection is specific — not general. See Jennings v. State, 588 So.2d 540 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). Defense counsel is not required to conduct an evidence class for the prosecution. Defense counsel should not have to direct his opponent's mind to the correct law the way one would thrust a beagle's nose on a rabbit trail.