Balderas, Juan A/K/A Apache, AP-77,036

Background

This is appellant Juan Balderas’s post-submission brief in a Texas death-penalty direct appeal challenging trial procedures that he contends violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights.
At trial the State asked that eyewitness Wendy Bardales testify through a Spanish interpreter, though the State conceded she could read, speak, and understand English and was "more comfortable" in Spanish.
Balderas objected, arguing that forcing her to testify through an interpreter (despite her English fluency) deprived the jury and the defendant of observing her demeanor and impaired effective cross-examination.
Balderas also sought admission of an audio recording of Bardales speaking English to police shortly after the offense to demonstrate her English proficiency and to impeach her claim of a language barrier; the trial court excluded or limited the tape.
The brief argues the trial court abused its discretion in appointing an interpreter and excluding the audiotape, and asks this Court to reverse or remand for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Balderas)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held (appellant's contention)
Whether forcing an English‑fluent witness to testify via an interpreter violated the Confrontation Clause by denying demeanor observation and effective cross‑examination	Interpreter unnecessary because Bardales "speaks and understands" English; use of interpreter diminished confrontation and reliability testing	The witness was "more comfortable" and more certain in Spanish; interpreter preserves accuracy of testimony	Trial court abused discretion by allowing interpreter despite concession of English fluency; partial denial of confrontation requires compelling interest (none shown)
Standard for appointing an interpreter / how fluent must a witness be	Texas law requires interpreter only if witness does not "understand and speak" English or cannot communicate "reasonably well"; Bardales met either standard	State relied on witness comfort and accuracy in preferred language	The trial court should have applied the statutory/precedent standards (understand & speak; reasonably well) and denied interpreter here
Whether a witness has a right to testify in preferred language	No constitutional right to testify in a preferred language; comfort does not outweigh defendant’s confrontation right	Witness preference and accuracy concerns justify interpreter	Witness preference alone is insufficient; defendant’s confrontation right prevails
Admissibility of audiotape of post‑offense interview as demonstrative/impeachment evidence	Tape directly impeaches Bardales’ claim of limited English and shows prior English conversation with police; authenticated demonstrative or impeachment evidence should have been admitted	State likely argued tape was cumulative, irrelevant, or improperly authenticated	Trial court erred by excluding the tape; its admission would have been relevant, material, and impeaching (and could have affected outcome)

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (procedural Confrontation Clause focus; reliability assessed via cross‑examination)
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (face‑to‑face requirement not absolute but exceptions are rare and require compelling interest)
Coronado v. State, 351 S.W.2d 315 (no balancing defendant’s confrontation right against social policies)
Diaz v. State, 491 S.W.2d 166 (no reversible error where defendant communicated in English reasonably well)
Flores v. State, 509 S.W.2d 580 (being more fluent in another language does not automatically require an interpreter)