Francisco J. Castrejon v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 772
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- HPD Vice Officer G. Das, working undercover, recorded a partly Spanish/partly English conversation with appellant Francisco Castrejon during a prostitution sting; no written English transcript was produced before trial.
- Appellant filed a motion in limine seeking exclusion of untranslated foreign-language conversations and requested disclosure of any translation 45 days before trial; the court required the State to approach before translating but allowed testimony about the conversation.
- At trial Das testified about the conversation, gave English renderings of Spanish phrases from her memory, and identified a recording (State’s Exhibit No. 2); the State did not offer a written certified translation or translator affidavit and initially did not play the recording.
- Defense counsel objected generally to admission without a certified interpreter and later objected to publishing the tape without translation, but did not specifically challenge the accuracy of Das’s translations, request appointment of an interpreter under art. 38.30, or seek a continuance to obtain a transcript.
- The trial court admitted the audio recording and allowed Das’s live testimony/translation; the jury convicted Castrejon of prostitution and the court assessed punishment (10 days jail, $500 fine).
Issues
| Issue | Castrejon’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of the bilingual audio was barred because Rule 1009(a) required 45 days’ notice and a written certified translation | Rule 1009(a) required 45‑day notice and a written certified English translation for foreign‑language material; absence of same made the recording inadmissible | Rule 1009(a) governs written translations of foreign‑language documents; Rule 1009(e) allows live testimony translation at trial without 45‑day notice, so the recording itself is admissible | The 45‑day notice/transcript requirement in Rule 1009(a) did not bar admission; live translation under Rule 1009(e) is permissible and no notice was required |
| Whether failure to obtain/appoint a court interpreter under art. 38.30 prejudiced Castrejon or required exclusion | Because the State did not provide prior notice, defense lacked opportunity to move for a court‑appointed interpreter and was prejudiced | The defendant could have requested an interpreter when the State offered the recording; art. 38.30 permits appointment on motion at any time | Defendant waived the complaint by not requesting an interpreter or moving for additional time; no reversible harm shown |
| Whether Officer Das was qualified to translate and whether her live translation was admissible | Das was not a certified translator and admitted not fluent; her translation was unreliable and should be excluded | Article 38.30 and precedent do not require certification; competency is for the trial court and live translation subject to cross‑examination is acceptable | Trial court did not abuse discretion in finding Das sufficiently skilled for this context; her sworn testimony and cross‑examination satisfied safeguards |
| Preservation of error and harmlessness | Admission was erroneous and prejudicial despite counsel’s general objections | Many objections were not timely or specific; appellant failed to preserve specific translation inaccuracies or show harm | Many objections were waived by failure to state specific grounds at trial; appellant did not show his substantial rights were affected |
Key Cases Cited
- Torres v. State, 71 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (standard of appellate review for evidentiary rulings)
- Linton v. State, 275 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (trial court has wide discretion to determine adequacy of interpretive services)
- Flores v. State, 299 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009) (translation must be accurate but need not be perfect)
- Peralta v. State, 338 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010) (Rule 1009(e) permits admission of translation by live testimony when subsection (a) time requirements are not met)
- Leal v. State, 782 S.W.2d 844 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (analogy to non‑English witness and applicability of art. 38.30 safeguards)
- Kan v. State, 4 S.W.3d 38 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999) (interpreter need not be certified but must have sufficient skill and familiarity with slang)
- Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (objections must be made at earliest opportunity to preserve error)