25 A.3d 786
Del.2011Background
- Gomez charged by indictment with two counts of rape first degree of his nine-year-old niece; trial by jury.
- Pretrial ruling barred admission of Gomez's New Jersey prior conviction; relevant testimony about that prior act was later elicited by the witness's mother.
- During the first day, CAC interview video was not admitted immediately; S.C. testified with an interpreter and teddy bear allowed for child witness accommodations.
- After S.C.'s mother testified, defense moved for mistrial when she referenced Gomez's prior similar offense against another niece; judge reserved ruling.
- On the second day, the court denied the mistrial motion but indicated possible curative instructions and cautions; a late-day remark about the prior incident occurred.
- Judgments of conviction reversed and remanded for a new trial; the court provided guidance on 3507 foundations, interpreter swearing, and accommodations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of mistrial was reversible error | State contends no mistrial required; curative instruction sufficed | Gomez argues the reference infected the trial and demanded mistrial | Mistrial required; convictions reversed and remanded |
| Foundational requirements for admitting 3507 CAC video | State argues video admissible with minimal foundation under 3507 | Gomez asserts insufficient foundation and need for direct testimony | Two-part foundation required; direct examination must elicit events and truth; video admission requires proper foundation |
| Swearing of the court interpreter required | State relies on interpreter; no explicit oath issue raised | Failure to swear interpreter violates procedural requirements | Interpreter must be sworn; record ambiguity requires caution on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Keys v. State, 337 A.2d 18 (Del. 1975) (prosecution must sponsor declarant; avoid reliance on officers to present crucial witnesses)
- Ray v. State, 587 A.2d 439 (Del. 1991) (foundation requirements for section 3507 statements; events and truth must be addressed)
- Blake v. State, 3 A.3d 1077 (Del. 2010) (two-part foundation for 3507; direct examination must elicit events and statement)
- Diaz v. State, 743 A.2d 1166 (Del. 1999) (swearing of interpreters when participating in proceedings)
- Czech v. State, 945 A.2d 1088 (Del. 2008) (guidance on substantial need for accommodations; factors to consider)
- Getz v. State, 538 A.2d 726 (Del. 1988) (acknowledges prejudice concerns in admissibility)