Today's Opinions - 11/4/09

Today, the CCA handed down published opinions in the following cases:

PD-0198-08, Jose Carmen Saavedra v. State: The Court held that an out-of-court interpretation through a non-testifying interpreter can be admissible over a hearsay objection under Rule 801(e)(2)(C) or (D) if the trial court is satisfied that the party authorized the interpreter to speak for him on the particular occasion. The Court remanded the case back to the court of appeals to determine whether the interpreter in this case was so authorized by looking at four factors: (1) who supplied the interpreter; (2) whether the interpreter had any motive to mislead or distort; (3) the interpreter's qualifications and language skills; and (4) whether actions taken subsequent to the translated statement were consistent with the translation. Click here for a case summary.

PD-0513-09, Ross Rodriguez, Attorney at Law, Surety v. State: The Court had granted review to consider whether a bail bond surety is liable after executing a bail bond when the State subsequently changes or adds more serious charges to the charge. However, the Court dismissed the petition as improvidently granted. No summary of this case is necessary or will be forthcoming.

Additionally, the Court denied habeas relief in Ex parte Michael Wayne Norris, albeit in an unpublished, per curiam opinion. The interesting thing here was Judge Womack's dissent, which Judges Price and Holcomb joined. The majority had denied relief because Norris failed to show he was justified in bringing a subsequent writ for relief. Judge Womack noted that the jury in Norris's case had been instructed on a theory of transferred intent that the CCA overruled in Roberts v. State (see my post on that case here). However, Norris only challenged his sentence and requested a new punishment hearing; he did not the finding of guilt (which is understandable because the Court had held that Norris had specifically intended to shoot both the adult victim, and the two-year-old child in her arms before going on to consider the transferred intent argument). Judge Womack would have looked past what Norris asked for and granted Norris a new trial. Although, I guess this is not surprising considering he took the time to write a separate opinion in Roberts to explain why he thought Norris's case was jacked up. Here's a link to the CCA case info if you're interested. Again, not published (so not binding), but I thought it was interesting after Roberts.