State v. Lopez-Ramos
913 N.W.2d 695
Minn. Ct. App.2018Background
- Lopez-Ramos, a Guatemalan native who speaks Mam and Spanish but limited English, was interviewed by police on May 10, 2016; the police called a telephone Spanish interpreter and recorded the interrogation.
- Through the interpreter, Lopez-Ramos admitted to having intercourse with a 12-year-old; the video and officer testimony conveyed those translated admissions to the jury.
- Lopez-Ramos was charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct, denied guilt at trial, and claimed intoxication and imperfect understanding of the interpreter.
- Before trial he objected that admitting the interpreter’s translations without the interpreter testifying violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights and was hearsay.
- The district court applied a multi-factor (Nazemian) test and found the interpreter acted as a “language conduit,” attributing the English translations to Lopez-Ramos; it admitted the recording and officer testimony.
- The jury convicted Lopez-Ramos and the court sentenced him to 144 months; he appealed the Confrontation Clause and hearsay rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting translated statements without the interpreter present violated the Sixth Amendment confrontation right | Lopez-Ramos: the interpreter was a declarant; his untranslated words were testimonial and required the interpreter for cross-examination | State: interpreter was a "language conduit"; translated words are attributable to Lopez-Ramos, so no Confrontation Clause issue | Court held interpreter was not a separate declarant; statements attributed to Lopez-Ramos, so no Confrontation Clause violation |
| Whether the translations were inadmissible hearsay | Lopez-Ramos: the interpreter’s out-of-court English statements are hearsay if treated as a separate declarant | State: translations are Lopez-Ramos’s own admissions and fall under party-opponent nonhearsay | Court held translated statements were admissions by Lopez-Ramos and admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A) |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements absent opportunity for cross-examination)
- United States v. Nazemian, 948 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1991) (articulated multi-factor test to decide when an interpreter is a “language conduit” and speaker is declarant)
- United States v. Orm Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (reconciled Nazemian with Crawford; permitted conduit analysis to resolve declarant identity)
- United States v. Charles, 722 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2013) (held interpreter’s translation can be a separate testimonial statement; emphasized concept-to-concept interpretation issues)
- Miller v. Lathrop, 52 N.W. 274 (Minn. 1892) (interpreting child’s translation treated as agent-based communication; early precursor to agency/conduit reasoning)
- State v. Mitjans, 408 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 1987) (admissions translated by a Spanish-speaking officer were admitted when translating officer testified; court declined to decide conduit issue when translator absent)