Weldon v. State
328 Ga. App. 163
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Brian Weldon convicted by jury of multiple armed robberies and aggravated assaults for a series of restaurant robberies in March 2007; some victims were injured or shot.
- Several non-English-speaking witnesses testified at trial; court used Cambodian-, Mandarin-, and Korean-speaking interpreters who were not certified.
- Weldon did not object at trial to the appointment or qualifications of the interpreters and expressly stated satisfaction with two of them.
- Weldon raised three issues on appeal: (1) trial court’s use of noncertified interpreters allegedly contrary to Georgia Supreme Court rules; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to interpreters; (3) trial court’s failure to rebuke prosecutor for an allegedly prejudicial closing remark.
- Trial court had sustained an earlier objection to the prosecutor’s misstating of law; Weldon did not object to the prosecutor’s subsequent statement he now challenges on appeal.
- Court of Appeals affirmed convictions, concluding the interpreter challenge and the rebuke claim were waived for lack of objection, and Weldon failed to show prejudice for the ineffective-assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of noncertified interpreters | Trial court failed to follow Supreme Court rules for appointing/instructing noncertified interpreters | Trial court acted within discretion and record lacks timely objection; appellee notes acquiescence | Waived — Weldon acquiesced by not objecting and saying he was satisfied; issue not preserved for appeal |
| Adequacy of interpreter qualifications/instructions | Interpreters were not certified/registered and lacked required oaths, instructions, and written agreements | State points to trial management and availability; court reviews appointment for abuse of discretion | Waived on direct appeal for failure to object; court need not decide abuse of discretion |
| Ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object to interpreters | Trial counsel’s failure to object was deficient and prejudiced defense | State argues no prejudice because multilingual witnesses were a small part of overwhelming evidence | Denied — Weldon failed prejudice prong; no reasonable probability outcome would differ given other strong evidence |
| Failure to rebuke prosecutor under OCGA § 17-8-75 | Trial court should have rebuked prosecutor for prejudicial closing remark | State notes no timely objection to that specific remark; court only required to act on timely objection | Waived — Weldon preserved only earlier objection (misstatement of law); did not object to the later remark, so claim not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramos v. Terry, 279 Ga. 889 (summarizes statewide rules and standards for appointing and supervising court interpreters)
- Pineda v. State, 288 Ga. 612 (sets Strickland-style two-prong test for ineffective assistance analysis)
- Compton v. State, 281 Ga. 45 (parties who acquiesce to rulings cannot later raise them on appeal)
- Craze v. State, 305 Ga. App. 805 (acquiescence waives interpreter-rule complaints)
- Duran v. State, 274 Ga. App. 876 (same; interpreter objections waived without timely complaint)
- Fuller v. State, 277 Ga. 505 (insufficient showing on one Strickland prong obviates need to consider the other)
- Holliday v. State, 263 Ga. App. 664 (no ineffective-assistance merit where evidence of guilt is overwhelming and translations did not affirmatively harm defendant)
- Earnest v. State, 262 Ga. 494 (OCGA § 17-8-75 requires judge action only where there is a timely objection)
- Jackson v. State, 271 Ga. App. 317 (failure to object at trial waives claim that court should have rebuked counsel)