Lopez v. State
153 So. 3d 927
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Four appellants (Lopez, Pizaro-Maysonet, Colorado, Burgos) appeal judgments for involvement in a Puerto Rico–to–Florida heroin network; cases were consolidated for opinion.
- Investigation used confidential informants and wiretaps; over 12,000 calls recorded, about 100 admitted into evidence; trial relied on Spanish recordings translated by police rather than official translators.
- Spanish-speaking speakers used Puerto Rican dialect; officers fluent in Spanish created translations after listening to recordings in a team approach.
- Recordings and translations were presented with transcripts and in-court testimony, but transcripts themselves were not admitted as exhibits; jurors could request replay of recordings, and a jury instruction allowed evaluation of translations as disputed translations.
- Court held the method for using translations did not amount to reversible error, and addressed the adequacy of procedural safeguards; noted the court reporter did not record the Spanish calls but concluded it was not error to omit transcript of such calls from the record.
- Court reversed parts of the judgments for three defendants on double jeopardy grounds and remanded for resentencing; Colorado’s conviction and sentence affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the translations of Spanish telephone calls were properly admitted and used at trial. | Lopez: translations adequate; officers competent; disputed translations for jury. | Lopez: need independent sworn translator per 90.606; procedural safeguards insufficient. | Not an abuse of discretion; no requirement for independent translator; jurors decide accuracy. |
| Whether the jury could rely on translations without an official translation as evidence. | State: translations sufficient with jury instruction and predicate evidence. | Defendants: require official translation; potential bias issues. | Translations permissible under safeguards; jury decides accuracy. |
| Whether double jeopardy barred multiple conspiracy convictions arising from a single conspiracy. | State: separate conspiracies valid; multiple offenses proper. | Lopez, Pizaro-Maysonet, Burgos: multiple conspiracy counts violate double jeopardy. | Three defendants’ multiple conspiracy convictions reversed; remand for re-scoring and resentencing. |
| What remedy on remand is appropriate to address double jeopardy and scoring effects? | Recalculate scores with the remaining valid judgments. | N/A | Remand with instructions to strike barred charges and recalculate scores; conduct resentencing hearing. |
| Whether the court reporter’s failure to record Spanish calls requires reversal or can be cured by other means. | N/A | N/A | Omission not error given safeguards; not grounds for reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fernandez v. State, 21 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (gatekeeping safeguards for translation evidence; jury to assess translation credibility)
- Ortega v. State, 721 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (police translator not appropriate to translate defendant statements; concerns about reliability)
- Greene v. State, 795 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (court reporter not required to record foreign-language testimony when translator is not official translator)
- Negron Gil de Rubio v. State, 987 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (double jeopardy concerns for multiple conspiracies within a single enterprise)
- Mathes v. State, 106 So. 3d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (recognizes double jeopardy issue in related conspiracy offenses)