Commonwealth v. Portillo
968 N.E.2d 395
Mass.2012Background
- District Court joined complaints for distribution and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
- Defendant moved to suppress August 13, 2005 statements as Miranda/arts. 12 violations due to lack of English Miranda warnings.
- Interrogation was in Spanish and tape-recorded; discovery delayed English transcript, no transcript provided to defense.
- Judge refused to translate; barred the audio and officer testimony about statements.
- Commonwealth sought to introduce Spanish recording and English testimony/translation; court allowed exclusion to protect transcript issues.
- Mass. Appeals Court and SJC held Commonwealth must provide English-language transcript when foreign-language statements are to be used, or face exclusion; remanded for possible translator-transcript production and reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a translated English transcript is required before using foreign-language statements | Commonwealth: no transcript required; audio alone suffices | Gants: require English transcript to ensure accuracy | Yes; transcript required and exclusion proper without it |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by excluding the statements without a transcript | Commonwealth: could rely on officers’ testimony | Case should not permit unscripted translation | No abuse; but remanded for translation option to be provided |
| Remedy for delayed or missing translation when recordings are used | Commonwealth: omit translation costs | Defendant deprived of rights without transcript | Remand; Commonwealth must decide whether to prepare a translated transcript |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Festa, 369 Mass. 419 (1976) (translation cautions; English transcript is the evidence when language is not English)
- Commonwealth v. Diaz, 453 Mass. 266 (2009) (officer testimony of Spanish portions; relevance of recording)
- United States v. Morales-Madera, 352 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003) (translation issues; need transcripts when not English)
- United States v. Rengifo, 789 F.2d 975 (1st Cir. 1986) (principles of admissibility of recordings)
- Commonwealth v. O’Neil, 418 Mass. 760 (1994) (court power to control proceedings; transcript practices)
- Commonwealth v. Means, 454 Mass. 81 (2009) (court’s inherent authority to manage trial proceedings)