AP-77,036
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 10/7/2015 7:26:39 AM
Accepted 10/7/2015 8:47:45 AM
ABEL ACOSTA
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS CLERK
No. AP-77,036
October 7, 2015
JUAN BALDERAS On Direct Appeal from the
Appellant, 179th District Court of Harris,
Texas; Cause No. 1412826.
****************
v. THIS IS A DEATH
PENALTY CASE
THE STATE OF TEXAS
___________________________________________________________
APPELLANT’S LIST OF SUPPLEMENTAL
AUTHORITIES
___________________________________________________________
ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR 10/07/2015
R. Scott Shearer
TBA No. 00786464
917 Franklin, Suite 320
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 254-5629
(713) 224-2889 FAX
ShearerLegal@Yahoo.com
Attorney for Appellant
(court-appointed)
October 7, 2015
To the Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals:
This case is set for oral argument today, October 7, 2015. Appellant would
like to draw the Court’s attention to the following additional authorities in support
of his claim that his right to confrontation was denied by the State’s use of an
unnecessary interpreter:
Cases
R. v. Burke, 8 Cox Crim. Cas. 45, 47 (1858) (“The value of this test [cross-
examination] is very much lessened in the case of a witness, having a sufficient
knowledge of the English language to understand the questions put by counsel,
pretending ignorance of it, and gaining time to consider his answers while the
interpreter is going through the useless task of interpreting the question which the
witness already understands.”)(cited in Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn Ed.
1970), §811, p. 277).
In the Interest of R.R., a Juvenile, 79 N.J. 97, 116, 398 A.2d 76 (Supreme Court of
New Jersey 1979) (“An interpreter should never be appointed unless Necessary to
the conduct of a case. That is, interpretation should be resorted to only when a
witness' natural mode of expression is not intelligible to the tribunal. [citations
omitted]. This is so because no matter how disinterested an interpreter might be,
there always exists a possibility that he will inadvertently distort the message
communicated by the primary witness.”).
1
Treatise
In discussing the necessity of interpretation, the following was recounted in 3
Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn Ed. 1970), §811, p. 277:
“Interpretation is proper to be resorted to whenever a necessity exists,
but not till then.1 ” (emphasis in original).
fn. 1:
"The following anecdote illustrates the need of caution: O'Regan's
Memoirs of John Philpott Curran, 29: ‘An Irish witness, Mr. Curran
said, was called on the table to give evidence, and having a preference
for his own language (first, as that in which he could best express
himself, next, as being a poor Celt he loved it for its antiquity, but
above all other reasons, that he could better escape cross-
examination by it), and wishing to appear mean and poor and therefore
a mere 'Irish,' he was observed on coming into court to take the buckles
[tongues] cunningly out of his shoes. The reason of this was asked by
counsel, and one of the country people, his opponent in the suit, cried
out, 'The reason, my lord, is that the fellow does not like to appear to
be master of two tongues!' " (emphasis added).
Concerning the situation in which a witness falsely claims to need an
interpreter, Dean Wigmore states the following:
“A witness who demands an interpreter on the ground of inability to speak
English is discredited as a falsifier if it is shown that he is in fact able to speak
it.” (emphasis in original).
Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn Ed. 1970), §812(6), p. 283:
2
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ R. SCOTT SHEARER
R. Scott Shearer
TBA No. 00786464
917 Franiklin, Suite 320
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 254-5629
(713) 224-2889 FAX
ShearerLegal@Yahoo.com
Attorney for Appellant
(court-appointed)
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this Brief for Appellant has been served upon the State
of Texas by e-mailing a copy of same to the following parties at their respective
addresses on this the 7th day of October, 2015:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
A.D.A. CLINTON A. MORGAN
APPELLATE DIVISION
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
1201 FRANKLIN, SUITE 600
HOUSTON, TX 77002
Morgan_Clionton@dao.hctx.net
/s/ R. SCOTT SHEARER
R. Scott Shearer
4