150 Conn.App. 867
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant Pierre L. Joseph was convicted by a jury of second-degree sexual assault; he appealed claiming denial of constitutional rights for lack of a Creole interpreter during critical trial stages.
- The defendant did not request a Creole interpreter until after he had already taken the stand; counsel had previously communicated with him in English and stated the defendant understood those communications.
- The trial record showed the defendant had participated in eight prior court appearances in English, entered a plea and jury election in English, and orally communicated with the court in English at arraignment.
- An interpreter was provided for the defendant’s testimony after counsel requested it and was excused when counsel indicated services were no longer needed.
- On appeal the defendant raised an unpreserved constitutional claim; the court considered whether the record was adequate under State v. Golding to review the constitutional claim and then whether any constitutional violation clearly existed and deprived him of a fair trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record is adequate to review an unpreserved claim that lack of a Creole interpreter violated constitutional rights | Record is insufficient; transcript shows defendant understood English and communicated with counsel | Once court knew English was not defendant’s first language, it had duty to inquire sua sponte whether he understood proceedings and needed an interpreter | Record was adequate for review; court rejected defendant’s contention that record was insufficient |
| Whether failure to provide a Creole interpreter during critical stages violated confrontation, presence, counsel, and fair trial rights | No constitutional violation; transcript shows conversational English, understanding of testimony, and ability to communicate with counsel | Lack of continuous Creole interpretation rendered trial fundamentally unfair and deprived defendant of rights | No. Under Munoz standard, defendant failed to show such limited English that trial was fundamentally unfair |
| Whether appellate court should adopt a rule requiring court to canvass defendant sua sponte about interpreter need | State: follow existing precedent; no new rule required | Court should be required to canvass defendant when put on notice of limited English | Court declined to extend law; Justice Berdon’s concurrence in Munoz not controlling and majority declined to make new rule |
| Whether any error was preserved or harmless (Golding prongs) | State: claim is reviewable but lacks merit; harmless if error | Defendant: constitutional claim reviewable and prejudicial | Court found first two Golding prongs satisfied (record adequate, constitutional magnitude) but defendant failed third prong; no need to reach harmlessness |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (defendant may prevail on unpreserved constitutional claim only if four-part test is met)
- State v. Munoz, 233 Conn. 106 (interpreters required only when defendant’s English is so limited that ability to comprehend proceedings or communicate with counsel is significantly impaired)
- State v. Jeudis, 62 Conn. App. 787 (constitutional standard: whether defendant can understand witnesses, communicate and otherwise comprehend proceedings)