Appeals Court weighs alleged trial errors, translation and prior‑act testimony in Kamal v. Silva Duarte
Loading...
Summary
Appellate counsel argued the trial was prejudiced by a skewed translation of the defendant’s statement, admission of a witness’s testimony tied to a different count, and the absence (or improper form) of an 'accident' jury instruction; the Commonwealth said a transcript existed and any errors were not prejudicial.
The Appeals Court heard arguments in Kamal v. Elena Silva Duarte, Docket No. 2024‑0292, where defense counsel Joanna Sandman urged reversal because of multiple trial errors that she said, in combination, irreparably undermined the defendant’s accident defense.
Sandman told the panel the trial court erred by admitting testimony from a witness identified as RH after the related count was removed, permitting the Commonwealth to bootstrap RH’s testimony in a way that prejudiced the accident defense. She also argued the prosecution’s interpreter, Officer Pereira, provided a skewed translation of a non‑English statement and that the Commonwealth failed to provide the required official transcript under Commonwealth v. Portillo, depriving the defendant of exculpatory nuance.
The panel asked whether RH’s testimony had any probative value once the count that made her a complainant was directed out and whether any admission could be cured with a jury instruction. Sandman said the instruction given by the trial court did not adequately limit the jury’s use of RH’s evidence and that defense requests for limiting instructions were not properly honored.
Paul Lin, for the Commonwealth, countered that the prosecution complied with Portillo: the statement was recorded, an official transcript existed and had been provided to defense well before trial and the suppression hearing. Lin also argued the defendant’s own statements and a separate witness identification and video tied the defendant to the scene, reducing the likelihood any alleged translation or testimony error changed the outcome.
The panel raised preservation issues (whether counsel preserved objections and requested instructions), the scope of relevant case law, and the practical connection between in‑court identification and video footage. As with the other arguments, the court took the case under advisement and did not announce a ruling from the bench.
