Case Title: Hare v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 50, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-09-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PATRICK HARE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 50, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0502014185 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 11, 2006 
Decided: 
September 18, 2006 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 18th day of September 2006, upon consideration of the appellant's 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the 
State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
A Superior Court jury found the defendant-appellant, Patrick 
Hare, guilty of one count of first degree burglary.  The Superior Court 
sentenced Hare to eight years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after 
serving three years for two years at Level III probation.  This is Hare’s direct 
appeal. 
(2) 
Hare's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Hare's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
 
2
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Hare's attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Hare with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Hare also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Hare has raised five issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Hare's 
counsel, as well as the arguments Hare has raised, and has moved to affirm 
the Superior Court's judgment. 
(3) 
The standard and scope of review applicable to the 
consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under 
Rule 26(c) is twofold:  (a) this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel 
has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable 
claims; and (b) this Court must conduct its own review of the record and 
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.1 
(4) 
Hare raises four issues that are reviewable in this appeal.  All of 
the issues relate to the victim’s ability to speak and understand English, and 
the Superior Court’s decision to allow the victim to testify with the help of 
an interpreter.  Although not clearly articulated, Hare appears to argue that 
                                                 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of 
Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
 
3
the victim spoke and understood English well enough to testify and that the 
State’s use of an uncertified interpreter unfairly influenced the case. Hare’s 
first argument is that the Superior Court erred in using an uncertified 
translator at trial.  Second, Hall appears to contend that the tape recording of 
the victim’s 9-1-1 call should have been admitted into evidence because it 
reflected on the victim’s credibility regarding the need for an interpreter.  
Third, Hare contends that the Superior Court erred by not sequestering the 
interpreter along with the other witnesses.  Fourth, Hare argues that because 
the victim was not provided with a translator when he originally was 
interviewed by police, his out-of-court statements should not have been 
admitted at trial.  Hare also raises a final claim alleging ineffective 
assistance of counsel.  With respect to this issue, it is well-settled that claims 
of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised for the first time on 
direct appeal.2  Accordingly, we will limit our review to the first four claims 
raised by Hare. 
(5) 
Hare’s first claim is that the Superior Court erred by allowing 
translation services for the victim to be performed by an uncertified 
translator.  Because this claim was not raised at trial, we review it for plain 
                                                 
2 Duross v. State, 494 A.2d 1265, 1269 (Del. 1985). 
 
4
error.3  To constitute plain error, Hare must establish that the alleged error 
affected his substantial rights.4 We find no plain error in this case.  Before 
accepting the interpreter’s services, the Superior Court established on the 
record that the interpreter was proficient in Punjabi, that he had acted as an 
interpreter in other state courts, including other Delaware courts, that he was 
familiar with Delaware’s code for interpreters and that he would comply 
with it.5  Moreover, Hare does not allege any specific instance of inaccurate 
or incomplete translation in this case.  Accordingly, we find no plain error in 
the Superior Court’s decision to use an uncertified translator. 
(6) 
Hare next asserts a vague claim of error because the tape 
recording of the victim’s 9-1-1 call was not admitted into evidence.  Hare 
contends that the tape recording would have resolved the issue he alleges 
regarding the victim’s proficiency in English.  Hare also claims the tape 
would have provided a basis to challenge the victim’s description of the 
perpetrator.  Hare does not allege that the State failed to provide defense 
counsel with the tape recording, only that the State failed to admit the tape 
recording during its case-in-chief.  Although Superior Court Criminal Rule 
                                                 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8. 
4 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 869 
(1986). 
5 See Diaz v. State, 743 A.2d 1166, 1183 (Del. 1999). 
 
5
16 imposes certain obligations upon the State to disclose evidence to defense 
counsel, there is no requirement that the State introduce particular evidence 
during its case-in-chief.6  Accordingly, we find no merit to Hare’s second 
claim. 
(7) 
Hare’s third claim is that the Superior Court erred by not 
sequestering the interpreter along with the other witnesses.  Hare alleges that 
by being allowed to remain in the courtroom and become familiar with the 
case, the interpreter was able to help the prosecution by coaching the victim 
through his testimony.  Hare did not raise an objection at trial.  Accordingly, 
we review this claim for plain error.7  In order to succeed on his claim, Hare 
must establish that the interpreter and victim violated the sequestration order 
and that it had a prejudicial effect on the trial.8  Hare, however, does not 
make any specific allegation of a violation of the sequestration order or of 
improper coaching by the translator.  Accordingly, we find no plain error in 
the Superior Court’s decision to allow the interpreter to remain in the 
courtroom. 
(8) 
Hare’s final contention is that the victim’s statement to police 
should not have admitted at trial because the victim was not properly 
                                                 
6 See generally Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 16 (2006). 
7 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8. 
8 Fountain v. State, 382 A.2d 230, 231 (Del. 1977). 
 
6
assisted by a translator in making the statement.  The investigating officer 
testified, however, that the victim was able to provide a statement to the 
police in English.  The officer testified that it “wasn’t extremely difficult” to 
understand the victim’s English.  Given that the victim was able to 
communicate with the police in English, there was no requirement for the 
police to secure a translator before questioning him.  Accordingly, we find 
no merit to Hare’s contention that the Superior Court erred by admitting the 
victim’s statement into evidence.  
(9) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Hare’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Hare's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Hare could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
The motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
            Justice