LEONARDO RODRIGUEZ, SR., AND LEONARDO RODRIGUEZ, JR., APPELLANTS,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendants' claims regarding an unsworn interpreter and limited impeachment were without merit and affirmed their convictions.
Defendants were convicted of aggravated battery and battery. They appealed, raising issues about the interpreter not being sworn and the limitation of…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contemporaneous Objection Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Leonardo Rodriguez, Sr., and Leonardo Rodriguez, Jr., appeal their convictions for aggravated battery and battery, respectively. We affirm.
Defendants first contend that the trial court erred in failing to have the interpreter sworn as required by Section 90.606, Florida Statutes (1993). We conclude that this claim is barred because this was not fundamental error and there was no contemporaneous objection. This matter could have readily been cured if timely called to the attention of the trial court. See generally Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995).
Defendants’ reliance on Balderrama v. State, 433 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), and a case apparently following it, Mesidor v. State, 521 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), is misplaced. In Balderrama, the unsworn translator was the codefendant brother of the defendant. The translator/brother had a conflict of interest with the defendant and there were allegations that he did not accurately translate the plea colloquy. Although the facts are not stated in Mesidor, the opinion makes clear that there were allegations of bias on the part of the interpreter in that ease as well. No such circumstances are present in the case now before us.
Defendants contend that the trial court unduly limited their impeachment of the victim. As we view the transcript, the court did, in fact, allow counsel to ask the victim about his prior deposition testimony after the contents of his prior statements had been disclosed to him. See § 90.614, Fla.Stat. (1993). We conclude that no evidentiary error has been shown.
We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for new trial. See Jent v. State, 408 So. 2d 1024, 1031 (Fla.1981), cert denied, 467 U.S. 1111, 102 S.Ct. 2916, 73 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1982); State v. Thomas, 570 So. 2d 1023, 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), cause dismissed, 577 So. 2d 1330 (Fla.1991); Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.600(a)(3).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tonnie Lee Martin v. State, 816 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…] judgment should be reversed because the transcript does not reflect that an interpreter used at the trial took the interpreter’s oath is barred because there was no contemporaneous objection and this was not fundamental error); Rodriguez v. State, 664 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (claim that trial court erred in failing to have interpreter sworn as required by statute was barred because this was not fundamental error and there was no contemporaneous objection; matter could have been readily cured if timely…
-
Easterly v. State, 22 So. 3d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…s for a reversal unless it constitutes fundamental error. See F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla.2003). An error is generally not considered fundamental if it could have been readily cured by a contemporaneous objection. See Rodriguez v. State, 664 So. 2d 1077, 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Below, Appellant argued that the evidence threatened to become a feature of the trial due to the number of incidents and the amount of time it would take for the State to elicit testimony about them. He did not raise any c…
-
Fernandez v. State, 786 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…of the judgment because the transcript does not reflect that the interpreter took the interpreter’s oath. “We conclude that this claim is barred because this was not fundamental error and there was no contemporaneous objection.” Rodriguez v. State, 664 So. 2d 1077, 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); see also § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (1999). Assuming for present purposes that the interpreter did not take the oath, the oath certainly would have been administered if this had been called to the attention of the trial court. R…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- Jent v. State, 408 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1981)
- Balderrama v. State, 433 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Ghislaine Mesidor v. State, 521 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Gomez v. State, 521 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- State v. Olrick Thomas, 570 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)