Commonwealth v. Adonsoto
58 N.E.3d 305
Mass.2016Background
- Early morning stop (July 22, 2012): Stoughton resident followed AdonSoto for ~10–12 minutes after observing erratic driving (swerving, straddling center line, crossing fog line); officer observed her run a four‑way stop and stopped her car.
- Officer smelled alcohol, observed glassy eyes and slurred speech; limited Spanish comprehension prevented field sobriety testing; AdonSoto was arrested and taken to the station.
- Police used a telephonic certified interpreter on speakerphone (call not recorded); interpreter relayed Miranda warnings and breathalyzer instructions in Spanish; AdonSoto nodded and said “yes.”
- AdonSoto attempted the breathalyzer three times but failed to seal her lips properly; no usable breath result produced; the Commonwealth introduced evidence of the failed attempts at trial.
- At trial, officer testified to the substance of AdonSoto’s Spanish statements as conveyed by the interpreter; defense objected on hearsay and confrontation grounds but did not preserve the confrontation claim; jury convicted AdonSoto of operating under the influence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of failed breathalyzer attempts | Evidence admissible because defendant consented to test; failure after consent is probative | Failure should be treated as statutory "refusal" (G. L. c. 90, §24(1)(e)) or excluded under Mass. G. Evid. §403 | Admissible: consent vitiates self‑incrimination refusal rationale; jury may infer intent; §403 risk of prejudice low given communication/demonstration evidence |
| Admissibility of translated statements (hearsay) | Officer may testify to defendant’s statements relayed by interpreter as party‑opponent admissions | Interpreter was police‑appointed so not defendant’s agent; translation is hearsay if interpreter not agent | Admissible: interpreter acted as defendant’s agent under facts (qualified, no motive to distort, defendant’s conduct consistent with translations) |
| Confrontation Clause claim re: interpreter | Admission violated Sixth Amendment—defendant had right to confront interpreter as declarant | Statements not central/culpable; defendant failed to show substantial risk of miscarriage of justice; claim unpreserved | No reversible error: court declines to decide broader constitutional question; on state grounds defendant not entitled to relief; no substantial risk of miscarriage of justice |
| Sufficiency of evidence of impairment | N/A (Commonwealth) | Evidence insufficient; possible inattentive/inexperienced driving rather than impairment | Sufficient: eyewitness erratic driving plus officer observations (odor, slurred speech, unsteadiness, glassy eyes) supported diminished capacity conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lopes, 459 Mass. 165 (discussing refusal evidence and self‑incrimination)
- Opinion of the Justices, 412 Mass. 1201 (reasoning that a refusal to take a breath test can be testimonial)
- Commonwealth v. Curley, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 163 (holding failure to properly perform test after consent is admissible)
- Commonwealth v. Vose, 157 Mass. 393 (interpreter treated as joint agent/language conduit)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause principles)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (limits on reliability‑based exceptions to confrontation)
- United States v. Orm Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131 (factors for determining whether interpreter acts as agent)
- United States v. Charles, 722 F.3d 1319 (Eleventh Circuit treatment of government‑appointed interpreter and confrontation issues)
- Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. 423 (value of recording interviews for reliability)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Jewett, 471 Mass. 624 (evidence establishing diminished capacity)