Elizondo v. State, 04-81-00409-CR
Citation | 665 S.W.2d 205 |
Decision Date | 25 January 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 04-81-00409-CR,04-81-00409-CR |
Parties | Gus Pena ELIZONDO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Morris Kirschberg, San Antonio, for appellant.
Bill White, Criminal Dist. Atty., Thomas McHugh, Michael Sawyer, Julie Pollock, San Antonio, for appellee.
Before CADENA, C.J., and CANTU and DIAL, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle. Appellant was found guilty in a jury trial. The court, after finding an enhancement count of one prior felony conviction true, assessed punishment at six (6) years' confinement in the Texas Department of Correction.
Appellant's first ground of error is that all of the testimony of the complainant, Celerino B. Herrera, should be inadmissible as the interpreter was not sworn prior to his testimony. This would result in insufficient evidence to prove the offense charged.
The record shows that the State's first witness was the complainant, Celerino B. Herrera, who testified through the interpreter, Maria Daughtery, official interpreter for the Bexar County District Courts. After finishing his testimony, Herrera was excused by both sides to return to his work. The second witness was San Antonio Police Officer Guadalupe Salazar, who testified without an interpreter. After Salazar testified, the State rested. The defense then made a motion to dismiss the case for several reasons, one of them being "the interpreter in this case was not sworn before the court and the jury and as a result, we ask that the testimony of Mr. Herrera be stricken from the record; and therefore, the State has not proved the elements of this offense."
The trial judge then conducted a hearing out of the presence of the jury where it was established that the interpreter had been officially sworn at the time of her employment some year-and-a-half previous. We note further, that no objection was made at the time the witness, Herrera, was testifying.
The rule in such cases is that where an official court interpreter has been appointed and was administered the requisite oath at the time of his appointment and no objection is timely made specifically to his failure to be resworn at the time of trial, no error is preserved. Perez v. State, 490 S.W.2d 847, 848 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Solis v. State, 647 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1983, no pet.). Appellant's first ground of error is overruled.
Appellant's second ground of error claims that the trial court improperly permitted the introduction of evidence of an extraneous offense.
An apparent theory of the defense was that the appellant had been in jail at the time of the theft of the automobile and therefore could not have committed the crime. The defense attorney called the appellant's half-brother as a witness to testify as follows:
Then came the following cross-examination by the State:
The defense later established through a custodian of the jail records that the appellant had in fact been in custody for the charge of unlawfully carrying a weapon and was released from county custody on that charge on a personal bond. He was transferred to the custody of the San Antonio Police Department for moving traffic violations. He was released from city custody later the same day.
Where a particular subject matter is inquired into first by the defense, the same subject matter may be further explored on cross-examination by the prosecution even if it concerns an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wiggins v. State
...See Pyeatt v. State, 462 S.W.2d 952, 953 (Tex.Crim.App.1971); Pierce v. State, 160 Tex.Crim. 587, 272 S.W.2d 736, 738 (1954); Elizondo v. State, 665 S.W.2d 205, 207 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1984, no pet.); Waldrop v. State, 662 S.W.2d 612, 615 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, pet. ref'd)......
-
Reed v. State
...that an instruction "asking" the jury to disregard statements made during jury argument was sufficient to cure error. See Elizondo v. State, 665 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1984, no pet.). Likewise, The court's instruction in this case was sufficient to cure any error created by ......
-
Rios v. State
...cure error, and the jury is presumed to comply with the instruction. Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529, 554 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Elizondo v. State, 665 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1984, no Appellant also complains of the prosecutor's further reference to this examination during his c......