DANIEL PERALTA v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Among other things, appellant challenges the admission of his videotaped confession. He argues that because the video was entirely in Spanish, it was error to play it to the jury without a qualified interpreter providing a contemporaneous translation by simultaneous in-court translation or by embedding a translation into the video via subtitles. A trial judge is afforded wide discretion in determining the adequacy of interpretive services. On appeal, the question is whether the services employed were constitutionally adequate, such that the defendant could understand and participate in the proceedings. The issue is not whether the "best" interpretive services were employed. The translation must be true or accurate, but need not be perfect. An abuse-of-discretion standard is applied to determine whether the trial court erred. The issue is overruled. El Paso Court of Appeals, No. 08-09-00006-CR, 11-30-2010

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

OPINION

We are again presented with a videotaped confession conducted in the Spanish language and the legal requirements for admitting the tape and an English translation. The procedures employed are critical because many jurors are fluent in Spanish and may interpret statements differently than a court interpreter or an official English translation. Even more problematic is the risk of Spanish-speaking jurors relating their own versions to other members of venire that speak only English. Today we strive to offer a protocol that will provide parallel consistency among the trial courts and allow the State and defense counsel to know what is expected. While the issue must occur routinely throughout Texas, it is most prevalent in border cities. Indeed, the two prominent decisions which have addressed the subject originated in Hidalgo County and El Paso County.

A jury found Daniel Peralta guilty of sexually assaulting his wife both anally and vaginally and assessed punishment of ten years’ imprisonment together with a $10,000 fine. Upon jury recommendation, the court suspended the confinement and placed Appellant on community supervision. This appeal follows.

DANIEL PERALTA v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal