Kaelin v. State, 81-29
| Decision Date | 03 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-29,81-29 |
| Citation | 410 So.2d 1355 |
| Parties | Robert Charles KAELIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Allen J. DeWeese, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant appeals his conviction on five counts of sexual battery. We affirm.
The victim, Claire, is a thirty-two year old mentally retarded woman. She is afflicted with cerebral palsy and a severe hearing deficiency. She has an IQ of fifty-four and the sign language ability of a six to eight year old child. Her ability to speak is also extremely limited.
Prior to trial, a hearing was conducted on defendant's motion to exclude Claire as a witness. The trial court found that she was capable of communicating but determined that her language deficiencies precluded effective cross examination. The court deferred ruling on the motion so that she would have an opportunity to enhance her communicative ability. To this end, appellant's expert, Dr. Dunstall, recommended that Bill Cohn assist Claire in improving her language skills. Mr. Cohn spent approximately fourteen hours over the course of several weeks working with Claire. Thereafter, based upon such improvement, the motion to exclude Claire as a witness was denied. Mr. Cohn thereafter served as her interpreter during trial.
Three points are raised on appeal. First, appellant asserts that the court erred in finding Claire competent to testify. Second, it is argued that Bill Cohn was unqualified to act as her interpreter. Lastly, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying a mistrial following three exclamations by Claire's mother, while testifying, to the effect of "It hurts." We find no merit in this last claimed error.
We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the proceedings below. Both parties have requested that we review video tapes of Claire's testimony. We decline to do so. The record more than adequately depicts the evidence considered by the jury. Moreover, it is the function of the trial judge, whose observations are firsthand, to determine the competency of a witness to testify. The prerequisites of competency have been universally recognized. A witness must have sufficient intelligence to understand the nature and obligations of the oath and the ability to perceive, remember and narrate the incident. Powell v. State, 373 So.2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
We will first consider the issue of Mr. Cohn's qualifications to act as Claire's interpreter. Although Cohn was not Board certified, he was an experienced interpreter for the deaf. He is certified by the National Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. He has considerable experience teaching sign language to retarded and the blind deaf persons. Furthermore, Cohn has been qualified as an interpreter for deaf persons in court proceedings and has acted as such on numerous occasions. While not an expert on official American sign language and interpretation for the deaf in general, even appellant's expert, Dr. Dunstall, agreed that Cohn's work with Claire gave him special insight and understanding as to her manner of communicating. It is true that Dr. Dunstall did not consider Cohn qualified to interpret for Claire. She testified that she disagreed with many of the interpretations put forth by Cohn. However, such disagreement went only to the weight accorded Claire's testimony, not to its admissibility. Dr. Dunstall's main objection to Cohn's qualifications was that he did not possess a "legal skills certificate" which signifies Board certification. This fact is insufficient to disqualify Cohn. Board certification has never been held as a prerequisite for expert status. See Chenoweth v. Kemp, 396 So.2d 1122 (Fla.1981); Kelly v. Kinsey, 362 So.2d 402 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The trial judge, after extensive inquiry, was satisfied with Cohn's ability to serve as an interpreter for Claire and the record does not establish that this decision was an abuse of discretion. See Section 90.606, Florida Statutes, Law Revision Council Note (1976).
We now...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. State
...374 So.2d 975 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, Rutledge v. Florida, 446 U.S. 913, 100 S.Ct. 1844, 64 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980); Kaelin v. State, 410 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The subject of a mentally challenged individual's competency to testify at trial was discussed in Hammond v. State, 660 So.2......
-
Del Rio v. State, 81-2292
...(Fla.1974); McCutchen v. State, 96 So.2d 152, 153 (Fla.1957); Moore v. State, 418 So.2d 435, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Kaelin v. State, 410 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Knight v. State, 392 So.2d 337, 338-39 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 399 So.2d 1143 (Fla.1981); Rodriguez v. State, 379 S......
-
Lowry v. State, 84-526
...judge should ensure that the victim's responses demonstrate her competency according to the standards set forth in Kaelin v. State, 410 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, C.J., concurs specially with opinion. ANSTEAD, Chief J......
-
Monte v. State, 82-2492
...determination of the particular interpreter's qualifications will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion, Kaelin v. State, 410 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). With these principles in mind, we observe that the record does not contain any mention of the qualifications of the cour......