HENRY MENDEZ-MARTINEZ v. STATE OF FLORIDA
16-3541
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- Defendant was charged with attempted sexual battery (victim 12 or older) and burglary with assault/battery after entering the victim’s bedroom without permission and attempting sexual acts.
- Officer Sergeant Carde conducted a ~1-hour recorded interview of Defendant in Spanish; Defendant made incriminating admissions on the recording.
- The Spanish recording was not translated into English before trial; the State asked to have Sergeant Carde translate the recording live at trial.
- The trial court allowed Sergeant Carde (the interviewing officer and investigator) to translate the video on the witness stand while it played; defense counsel objected multiple times.
- The jury convicted Defendant on both counts; Defendant appealed arguing the court erred by permitting the investigating officer to translate her own recorded interview without proper safeguards.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether it was proper to permit the interviewing officer (investigator) to translate a Spanish-recorded confession live at trial without prior sworn interpreter testimony or translation safeguards | Court may allow witness translation; no requirement for independent translator in every case; judge can assess credibility | Allowing the investigating officer to translate is improper because she was not impartial, not sworn as interpreter, and no prior translation or gatekeeping occurred | Reversed: court abused discretion; live translation by investigating officer without procedural safeguards was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Fernandez v. State, 21 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (permitting State-employed witness to translate where witness testified she was not involved in investigation and procedures showed translation reliability)
- Gopar-Santana v. State, 862 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (interpreter must be qualified, sworn, and impartial)
- Hernandez v. State, 723 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (recordings in a foreign language generally require a sworn interpreter to prevent prejudice)
- Hutchens v. State, 469 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (error to admit audio without sworn interpreter translating for jurors)
- Lopez v. State, 153 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (court may require extensive gatekeeping and show translation accuracy; warning that officer-translators closely involved in investigation is bad practice)