The Oregon Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction of Shong Xiong for unlawful use of a weapon and menacing. This decision, filed on October 28, 2026, addresses several legal arguments raised by Xiong regarding the admissibility of evidence and jury instructions. The ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards for using interpreters in court and the admissibility of recorded statements.

The case stems from an incident where Xiong allegedly threatened her son with a kitchen knife during a family argument. The Washington County Circuit Court found her guilty, leading to her appeal. Xiong argued that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence and failing to provide specific jury instructions related to the use of an interpreter.

In the appeal, Xiong was represented by Ernest G. Lannet and Matthew Blythe from the Oregon Public Defense Commission, while the state was represented by Dan Rayfield and his team. The appeal was heard by Judges Ortega, Joyce, and Hellman.

Background

The dispute in this case began when Xiong was accused of threatening her son with a knife during a family dispute. The police were called to the scene, and Xiong was charged with menacing and unlawful use of a weapon. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence, including a recording of a conversation between Xiong and a police officer, which was interpreted in real-time using a telephonic interpreter.

Xiong's defense raised several issues on appeal, focusing on the admissibility of the recorded conversation and the exclusion of her own recorded statements. The defense argued that the trial court erred by admitting the interpreter's translation without the interpreter testifying and by not allowing the jury to hear Xiong's recorded statements. The appeal also challenged the trial court's failure to provide jury instructions related to the use of interpreters.

The Ruling

The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court did not err in admitting the recorded interpretation of Xiong's statements to the police officer. The court noted that Xiong had not objected to the admission of the video at trial, which included the interpreter's translation. Judge Ortega stated, "The trial court was not required to intervene during the playing of the video to sua sponte exclude those portions of the video containing the out-of-court translation in the absence of an objection to those specific statements."

Regarding the exclusion of Xiong's recorded statements, the court found that the proposed evidence was not sufficiently contradictory to the testimony of a witness to warrant its admission for impeachment purposes. The court concluded that the trial court did not err in excluding the recording, as it did not contradict the witness's testimony in a significant way.

On the issue of jury instructions, the court ruled that the trial court did not plainly err in failing to provide specific instructions regarding the use of an interpreter. The court emphasized that Xiong did not request these instructions during the trial, which is typically necessary to preserve the right to appeal on such grounds.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for future cases involving the use of interpreters in court. It clarifies that the admissibility of evidence, particularly translations, hinges on whether objections are raised during trial. Additionally, it underscores the necessity for defendants to request specific jury instructions to preserve their right to appeal on those grounds. The decision may influence how courts handle similar cases, particularly those involving non-English speakers and the use of interpreters.

For defendants like Xiong, this ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of timely objections and requests during trial proceedings. It also highlights the challenges faced by individuals who rely on interpreters in legal contexts, as the court's ruling may limit the ability to challenge evidence based on language barriers.

What's Next

As the ruling is final, Xiong's conviction stands. There is no indication in the court filing that Xiong plans to appeal this decision further. However, similar cases may arise in the future, potentially prompting further legal discussions about the rights of defendants who require interpreters.