Cassemus v. State

• Citation: 16 Ala.App. 61,75 So. 267
• Decision Date: 17 April 1917
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 157
• Parties: CASSEMUS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

75 So. 267

16 Ala.App. 61

CASSEMUS v. STATE.

6 Div. 157

Court of Appeals of Alabama

April 17, 1917

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Fort, Judge.

A.C Cassemus was convicted, denied a new trial, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Felix E. Blackburn, of Birmingham, for appellant.

W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and P.W. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN J.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of knowingly hindering, delaying, and defrauding another, who was his landlord, and who had a lien on his store fixtures and goods for rent, by removing said property from the rented premises and thereby destroying the landlord's lien on the property contained in the store of the defendant.

On the trial of this case it appears that there were no objections to the evidence. The first insistence of error is directed to the remarks of the solicitor made to the court in his objection to the granting of the request of the defendant who sought to have the court swear an interpreter to translate the Greek language of the defendant into English (the defendant being a Greek), and contended that he did not speak or understand the English language sufficiently to enable him to give his testimony in English. The remarks of the solicitor complained of were as follows, to wit:

"I have had some experience with these interpreters in other cases, and I object to an interpreter being used in this case. It has been my experience that these Greeks and their interpreters fix up the evidence to suit themselves and the interpreters do not say what the witnesses testified to, and do not correctly interpret what witness says."

These remarks were made to the court in the presence and hearing of the jury, whereupon counsel for the defendant objected to the remarks as being highly improper, and requested the court to so instruct the jury. The court sustained the objection of defendant, and specifically instructed the jury:

"That the said remarks of the solicitor were improper to be made in their presence, and that the jury must disregard said remarks and not consider them in any way, but that said remarks must be excluded from all consideration, and that they must try the case on the evidence in the case and pay no attention to such remarks of counsel," etc.

It is seriously insisted that even the prompt and decisive action of the court in this connection did not and could not cure the injury and harm which had been done; and that even though said remarks were excluded, their tendency was of that character to highly prejudice and bias the jury against the defendant and were calculated to, and did, have the effect of humiliating and intimidating the defendant to the extent of being very hurtful in the presentation of his case. We are of the opinion that there is merit in this contention; and while, on the main appeal, we cannot review the action of the trial court as to this matter, for the reason that the ruling, as far as invoked on the main trial, was in favor of the defendant, and h...