Lopez v. State

An interpreter acted as a "mere conduit" under the circumstances, when he translated the defendant's statements to a witness, since there was no evidence that the interpreter had a motive to misrepresent what the defendant said and no evidence, which cast doubt on the accuracy of the translation.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Antonio Lopez, convicted by a jury of trafficking in methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, conspiracy to traffic in methamphetamine, and possession of methamphetamine,1 appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial. Lopez contends that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay evidence and that insufficient evidence supports his convictions. For the following reasons, we find no error and affirm. On appeal, we view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict and the appellant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence; moreover, on appeal this court determines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Williams v. State , 217 Ga. App. 636, 638 3 458 SE2d 671 1995. Viewed in this light, the record shows that the State produced testimony from Michael Hines, an admitted drug dealer who obtained methamphetamine from a supplier named Robert and sold 2-3 pounds of methamphetamine a week.

Hines testified that in October 2002, Lopez, Jessica Gonzalez, and two unidentified men drove to his home in a red Lincoln Navigator automobile. Hines spoke and understood only English, and Lopez spoke and understood only Spanish. Hines testified that he had a face-to-face conversation with Lopez through Gonzalez, who acted as an interpreter and translated Lopez’s statements into English and Hines’s statements into Spanish. Hines said that Lopez told him that he Lopez was there to take over for Robert as the new methamphetamine supplier. After Lopez told Hines that he Hines owed Robert $7,000, Hines told Lopez that he would transfer title to his truck to satisfy the debt. Lopez told Hines to call him if he needed anything, which Hines understood to mean that he should call Lopez when he needed more methamphetamine. Gonzalez then wrote a phone number on a piece of paper that Lopez handed to Hines.

Lopez v. State

An interpreter acted as a "mere conduit" under the circumstances, when he translated the defendant's statements to a witness, since there was no evidence that the interpreter had a motive to misrepresent what the defendant said and no evidence, which cast doubt on the accuracy of the translation.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report