A [‘FiRM; and Opinion tiled March 1, 2013.

In The 

## Qnurt uf Apprats .Fift1! 

## 1iitrict nf rxzu at 1a1ta No. 05-1 1-00826-CR
JUAN CARLOS [IERNANDEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F09-60943-M 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION I3efore Justices Moseley. Francis, and Lang Opinion By Justice Lang Juan Carlos Hernandez appeals from a conviction of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. In a single issue on appeal. Hernandez contends the trial court abused its discretion by permitting a police detective to testify, over objection, respecting the Spanish statements made by Hernandez in his audio-recorded confession. We decide against Hernandez on this issue. The trial court’sjudgment is affirmed. Because all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. See TEx. R. App. P. 47.4. 1. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Hemandez was charged by indictment with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. After pleading not guilty, 

### he was convictedby ajury, ordered to pay a $10,000 fine, and sentenced to fitly-two years’ imprisonmenL At trial, Detective (iilherto Martinez. HI. testified that he interviewed I Iernandez and recorded his confessioii. According to the detecti\ e there were “some points in the interview when he spoke Spanish with Flernandez. Portions ofthe audiorecorded statement were played durinr the detective’s testimony, and he testitied regarding the English portion ot the conversation between himselfand I-fernandez. Then, before the detective started to testiiv to what Hernandez said in the parts ofthe statement he made in Spanish. definse counsel objected to the detective “serving inj the capacity ota translator.” The objection was overruled, and the detective continued his testimony. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW “On appellate review, and pursuant to Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure 44.2(b), a nonconstitutional error mustbe disregardedunless it affects the defendant’s substantial rights.” Barshaw
v. State, 342 S.W.3d 91,93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing TEx. R. App. P.44.2(b) (“Other errors. Any other error, detect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must he disregarded.”)). We will not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error if, after examining the record as a whole, we have fair assurance the error did not influence thejury, or influenced thejury only slightly. Id. (citing Schulz v. State, 63 S.W.3d 442, 444 (Tex. Crirn. App. 2001)). In consideringthe potential to harm, the focus is noton whetherthe outcome ofthetrial was proper despite the error, but whether the error had a substantial or injurious effect or influence on thejury’s verdict.” Id. at 93-94 (citing Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)). “A conviction must be reversed for non-constitutional error ifthe reviewing court has grave doubt that the result ofthe trial was free from the substantial effect ofthe error.” Id. at 94 (citing Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)). “Grave doubt’ means that ‘in thejudge’s mind. the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himselfin virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness ofthe error.’” Id (quoting 

### Burnett, 88 S.W.3d at 637-38). ‘“[ljn cases ofgrave doubt
as to the harmlessness the petitioner must win.” 

### Id. (quoting Burnett, 88 S.W.3d at 638). In assessing the likelihood that the jurY’s decision was improperly influenced, we must consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, and the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case. Id. (citing Morales 

### v. State. 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Haley v. State, 173 S.W.3d 510, 518-19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)). “The reviewing court may also consider thejury instruction given by the trial judge, the state’s theory, defensive theories, closing arguments, voir dire, and whether the state emphasized the error.” Id. (citing Morales, 32 S.W.3d at 867; Haley, 173 S.W.3d at 518-19; Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355-56 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)). Additionally, the presence ofoverwhelming evidence ofguiltplays a determinative role in this analysis. Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264. 285 (Tex. Crirn App. 2008) (citing Mod/la, 7$ S.W.3d at 356). B. Application ofLaw to Facts Hernandez argues the trial court erred in permitting the detective to translate the Spanishlanguage portions ofhis recorded confession, contendingthetestimonywas hearsay andthe detective
was a witness for the State who (lid not establish his qualifications to translate. The State responds Hernandez’s objection at trial was not specific enough to preserve the issue, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the detective to translate Hernandcz’s Spanish statements, and any
error was harmless. Assuming, without deciding, the trial judge erred by admitting the detective’s testimony regarding Hcrnandez’s Spanish statements when defense counsel interposed his objection that the

### detective was “serving the 

### capacity ofa translator” and “we have a translation issue,” 

### we must analyze whether that 

### error affected Hcrnandez’s substantial rights. See 

### Wx. R. Api. P. 44.2(b): 

### Barshaw, 342 S.W.3dat93. Therecordreflectsthatbeforethedetectivetestifiedandanypartof the recording was played 

### forthejury. evidence ofHernandez’s guilt was admitted without objection. Another police officer, Officer Christopher Biggs, testified he stopped Hernandez in the complainant’svehicleforspeeding. Thepoliceofficer’stestimony, videoofthattraffic stop,andstill photographs from the video established liemandez was the driverofthe vehicle the police officer stopped. Theevidenceshowedthecomplainantwastheregisteredownerofthevehiclestopped, and not Hernandez. The police officer’s testimony and the traffic citation he issued to Hemandez established Hemandez was driving the complainant’s vehicle a few hours after the vehicle was reported stolen. Then thedetectivetestified. Therecord shows thatbefore Heniandezraisedtheissue ofthe translation, the detective had already testified that Hernandez admitted he was there when the complainantwasrobbed, his “homeboy”useda screwdriverto stealthecomplainant’s vehicle, and Hernandcz “took off’ in the complainant’s vehicle. The detective testified that being a Spanish speaker he would use occasional Spanish to establish rapport during the interview and that this interview contained some Spanish language. The complete audio recording was admitted into evidence, and no request was made to have any Spanish portions translated into English. The prosecution played the portion ofthe recording containing Hernandez’s statements in English whereinhe admittedhe andhis “homeboy”tookthecomplainant’svehicle,butthathis “homeboy” was the one with the screwdriver. Then, when the Statebeganto play the portion ofthe recording containing Spanish and asked the detective what Hernandez said, the defense interposed its objection. Afterthetrial court’sruling, the detectivecontinuedhis testimony. Defense counsel did

-4--not crossexarnine the (letective on his Interpretation, and he did not ask the “courtroom interpreter” to yen iv the accuracy of the detective’s testinonv. We conclude any error in admitting the comphunedot testimony was harmless in light of’ the overwhelming evidence ot guilt shown by other evidence in the record. See 

### Neal, 256 S.W3d at 285. IV. CONCLUSION We decide against Hernandez on his sole issue on appeal. The trial court’s judgment is

attirnicd. 

# /1 2J D6iG[.AS. LANG 

### 1 JUSH(F Do Not Publish Tix. R. App. P. 47 I 108261”.UOS

# 0
(nitrI Lif 

## Appri1i 

## !fift1i Jfttrirt tit XLtI5 Lit 

## JLt11Lt JUDGMENT .I[AN CARL.( )S HERNANDEZ. Appellant Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-1 1-00826-CR V. F09-60943-fv1), Opinion delivered 1w Justice Lang. .lusticcs fl IF STATE OF: TE\AS Appellee Mosclev and Francis participating. l3ased on the (fourt’s opinion ofthis date, thejudgment ofthe trial court is AFFiRMEl),
Judgment entered March 1 2() 13.

- 7/

- — - -. - I OOUGL.’S. LAN(i JUSTI

## c4