State v. Perez, 24921.
Decision Date | 22 March 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 24921.,24921. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Natalio A. PEREZ, Appellant. |
Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, of Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for appellant.
Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Derrick K. McFarland, all of Columbia; and Solicitor W. Townes Jones IV, of Greenwood, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. We affirm.
Four days after their marriage, appellant murdered his wife, Brenda Connelly. Brenda's 11-year-old son testified he saw appellant stab his mother. Brenda was stabbed five times and the wounds were so severe that she was almost decapitated. Appellant contended at trial that Brenda had threatened to kill herself and he was merely attempting to get a knife away from her when she fell on it.1
Did the trial court err in denying appellant an interpreter to translate his criminal trial thereby violating appellant's Sixth Amendment rights to confront witnesses and be present at his trial?
On appeal, appellant contends the trial judge erred by denying appellant an interpreter. We disagree.
Appellant made a pre-trial motion requesting that the interpreter at his trial be allowed to translate everything said in the courtroom. The trial court `stated he would allow the interpreter to translate the questions for appellant and, if appellant testified, both the questions and answers. Appellant then asked for pauses in the trial at certain crucial points to allow the interpreter time to explain the proceeding to appellant. The trial judge stated, Nothing further was said.
Appellant never objected to the trial court's ruling as to the pauses in the trial and he never informed the trial judge of any problems. Accordingly, these arguments are procedurally barred. State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 401 S.E.2d 168 (1991) ( ). See also State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 498 S.E.2d 642 (1998)
(. )
1. Although this was the majority of appellant's testimony, there was also testimony and it was argued that Brenda was cheating on appellant and he committed the murder in an act of jealousy. Ultimately, only murder and voluntary manslaughter were submitted to the jury— not accident or self-defense.
2. The interpreter was sworn prior to petitioner's testimony, but petitioner alleges the interpreter should have been sworn at the beginning of the trial. An interpreter is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Carlson
...trial court are not preserved for appellate review. State v. Wise, 359 S.C. 14, 596 S.E.2d 475 (2004), cert. denied; State v. Perez, 334 S.C. 563, 514 S.E.2d 754 (1999). "A defendant may not argue one ground below and another on appeal." State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 380, 580 S.E.2d 785, 79......
-
State v. Adams
...the trial court. Arguments not raised to or ruled upon by the trial court are not preserved for appellate review. See State v. Perez, 334 S.C. 563, 514 S.E.2d 754 (1999) (issues not raised to and ruled upon by the trial court will not be considered on appeal). Moreover, a defendant may not ......
-
State v. Staten
... ... trial judge to be preserved for appellate review ... See State v. Perez , 334 S.C. 563, 514 ... S.E.2d 754 (1999); State v. Adams , 354 S.C. 361, 580 ... S.E.2d 785 (Ct. App. 2003). Furthermore, although ... ...
-
State v. Moore
... ... 586, 597, 611 S.E.2d 283, 288 (Ct ... App. 2005); State v. Wise, 359 S.C. 14, 596 S.E.2d ... 475 (2004); State v. Perez, 334 S.C. 563, 514 S.E.2d ... 754 (1999) ... Moore ... contends the State should be collaterally estopped from ... ...