People v. Torres

California Court of Appeal Jan 29, 1985 No. F003661Published

Before: Martin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred by admitting translated transcripts without requiring the original translator to be sworn under oath, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the transcripts were authenticated by a fluent officer and the defendant failed to challenge their accuracy.

Issues

Whether the original translator of a tape-recorded conversation must testify under oath as a condition precedent to the admissibility of the transcript.
Whether the failure to swear the original translator constitutes reversible error when the transcript is otherwise authenticated by a fluent witness.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Evidence Code sections 750 and 751 require the administration of a precisely formulated oath to any person who is to act as an interpreter, and the statutory requirements are mandatory in a criminal prosecution.”

“The failure to call the original translator to the witness stand denied the defendant a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the individual who translated the material as to his qualifications and the accuracy of the translation.”

“Thus, while it was error not to place the original interpreter under oath, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

[268]

Opinion

MARTIN, J.

Statement of the Case

Defendant was found guilty of sale of heroin in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for the middle term of four years. Defendant appeals.

Denial of Due Process

A translated transcript of a tape recording of the conversation during the transaction in question and a translated transcript of a tape recording of a telephone conversation between the female informant and the defendant, allegedly setting up the sale, were admitted into evidence over defense objection. There was no evidence presented that a certified court interpreter translated the conversations. On appeal, the defendant contends that absent the interpreter testifying under oath, as required by Evidence Code section 751, there lacked a meaningful opportunity to determine the qualifications of the interpreter, the accuracy of the transcript and an opportunity for cross-examination.

Section 751 of the Evidence Code provides: “(a) An interpreter shall take an oath that he will make a true interpretation to the witness in a language that the witness understands and that he will make a true interpretation of the witness’ answers to questions to counsel, court, or jury, in the English language, with his best skill and judgment.

“(b) A translator shall take an oath that he will make a true translation in the English language of any writing he is to decipher or translate.”

Section 753, subdivision (a) of the Evidence Code provides: “When the written characters in a writing offered in evidence are incapable of being deciphered or understood directly, a translator who can decipher the char

[269]

People v. Torres

AI Brief

MARTIN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief