## Facts

- J. C. Watson, Jr. was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment as an habitual offender under Tex. Penal Code § 12.42(d).
- The prosecution relied primarily on accomplice testimony and sought corroboration through the testimony of the victim’s husband, George Keilmann, Sr.
- Keilmann had suffered a stroke that left him unable to speak except for “uh-huh,” unable to write, and impaired in understanding questions.
- In a competency inquiry outside the jury’s presence, Keilmann repeatedly answered “uh-huh” to leading questions, including when a negative response was called for, and could not reliably indicate “no.”
- Keilmann’s son advised the court that his father’s “uh-huh” did not consistently mean “yes,” citing an example where Keilmann appeared to affirm he drove a truck but in fact did not.
- The trial court permitted Keilmann to testify using a caregiver (who claimed she could tell when he meant “yes” or “no”) as an “interpreter.”
- At trial, Keilmann’s interpreted testimony was inconsistent and at times contradictory on key points, including identification-related matters and events surrounding the offense.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing testimony from a witness whose impairments prevented reliable understanding of questions, communication of intelligible answers, and demonstration of understanding the oath.
2. Whether the trial court erred by appointing a lay caregiver as interpreter without an adequate showing of qualification and neutrality, thereby undermining the reliability of the testimony.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Keilmann’s testimony because he was not competent to testify.
- The court also held the use of an unqualified and non-neutral interpreter compounded the error and contributed to an unfair trial.
- Because the State used Keilmann’s testimony as key corroboration of accomplice testimony, the errors were not harmless.

## Legal Principles

- A witness must have sufficient capacity to understand the obligation of the oath, to observe and recollect events, to understand questions, and to provide rational, intelligible answers.
- Physical disability alone does not require disqualification, but a witness is incompetent when communication limitations prevent reliable narration and intelligible testimony.
- Interpreter-mediated testimony requires a properly qualified, neutral interpreter with a demonstrable basis for accurate translation; a surrogate or interested interpreter threatens reliability.
- Admission of incompetent testimony, especially when central to corroborating an accomplice, can deny a fair trial and requires reversal when it materially affects the verdict.

## Conclusion

The conviction was reversed because the trial court admitted testimony from a witness unable to reliably comprehend and communicate, and then relied on an inadequately qualified, non-neutral interpreter, errors that materially affected the State’s corroboration of accomplice testimony and the fairness of the trial.


Watson v. State, 596 S.W.2d 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)