Marvin Taylor v. State, 07-15-00125-CR

Marvin Taylor was convicted by a jury of three counts of aggravated sexual assault (first-degree felonies) arising from an August 18, 2009 assault on L.R.; sentences were 45 years and $10,000 fines on each count, to run concurrently.
A Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE nurse), Paula Fornara, interviewed L.R. the day of the assault using LanguageLine over speakerphone because L.R.’s primary language was Spanish; the translator provided verbatim translations of questions and answers.
Fornara testified at trial to L.R.’s account as relayed through the translator (knife threat, oral and vaginal penetration, multiple penetrations, mouth on genitals, rectal contact); physical findings (abrasion, hymenal tear) and DNA evidence corroborated assault.
L.R. also testified at trial through a translator and later identified Appellant in a lineup; law enforcement testified to her distraught condition at the scene.
Appellant testified the acts were consensual and objected at trial that admission of the SANE nurse’s testimony relaying the translator’s rendition violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights; he sought the translator’s identity and reliability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the translator’s rendition of L.R.’s statements to the SANE nurse was testimonial under the Sixth Amendment	Prosecution: statements were non-testimonial; translator acted as conduit for a medical interview, not a witness against defendant	Taylor: translator’s out-of-court statements were testimonial and admitted without opportunity for cross-examination, violating Confrontation Clause	Court held the translator’s rendition was non-testimonial (translator was a conduit) and did not violate Confrontation Clause
If admission was error, whether it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	N/A (Prosecution argued cumulative/corroborative evidence made any error harmless)	Taylor argued any Confrontation error required reversal	Court held any error would be non-structural and harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given L.R.’s own testimony, physical/DNA evidence, and corroborating witness testimony

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements by absent witnesses barred absent prior cross-examination)
Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985) (Confrontation Clause protects opportunity for effective cross-examination)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (confrontation right includes attacking witness credibility and bias)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (primary-purpose test for determining whether statements are testimonial)
Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (2015) (objective examination of primary purpose of statements in context)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (Confrontation Clause errors that are nonstructural are subject to harmless-error review)