State v. Martinez, 306 Neb. 516

Background

Defendant Juan Gonzalez Martinez was charged with three counts of first-degree sexual assault against his daughter (victim born 1995); jury convicted on count 1 (events dated Jan 2001–July 2006); counts 2 and 3 were dismissed and acquittal directed as to those counts.
Victim disclosed abuse in 2017; evidence included her live testimony, recorded Spanish-language police interview, two recorded controlled Spanish phone calls, and Spanish text messages between Martinez and the victim.
Bilingual city records technician Luz Aguirre translated the Spanish recordings and texts into English, testified at trial, and was cross-examined; the district court admitted her English translations as nonhearsay under a language-conduit theory.
Defendant sought to admit a police report containing the victim’s and her teacher’s prior statements under the residual hearsay exception; the trial court excluded it for failure to provide mandatory pretrial notice.
Martinez moved to suppress the videotaped interview, claiming an invalid Miranda waiver; the court found the Spanish Miranda warnings were read, Martinez signed the waiver, and he voluntarily waived rights.
Sentence: imprisonment 30–40 years. Martinez appealed, raising challenges to translation admissibility, residual hearsay exclusion, prior-act evidence, Miranda waiver, sufficiency of evidence, and sentence excessiveness.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Martinez)	Held
Admissibility of Spanish→English translations	Translations were true and accurate; translator testified and was cross-examined, so translations are admissible as nonhearsay (translator is a language conduit).	Translations were hearsay; translator lacked formal certification; additions (punctuation) and rendering of “uh-huh” to “(Yes)” altered meaning; relationship/agency rules misapplied.	Court: Translator’s testimony and cross-examination satisfied rule 801(4) — translations admissible as nonhearsay; accuracy challenges go to weight.
Admission of teacher and victim statements via police report (residual hearsay)	N/A (State opposed admission).	Hinton’s report containing West’s and M.F.’s statements should be admitted under Neb. Evid. R. 803(23).	Court: Exclusion affirmed — defendant failed to provide the mandatory pretrial notice required by rule 803(23).
Admission of prior sexual conduct (Mexico incident)	State: prior act admissible under Neb. Evid. R. 414 to show pattern/progression.	Evidence was improper propensity evidence and unreliable under Rule 414 and 404.	Court: Issue not preserved — defense failed to renew trial objection after in limine ruling, so appellate review denied.
Suppression / Miranda waiver	N/A (State proved waiver).	Martinez argued waiver was involuntary and he did not actually sign or understand the waiver.	Court: Waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; recorded interview and signed Spanish waiver supported denial of suppression.
Sufficiency of the evidence	Victim’s credible testimony and corroborating physical/record evidence sufficed.	Victim’s testimony lacked corroboration and her credibility was impeached by earlier untruths.	Court: Victim’s testimony alone, if believed, is sufficient; viewing evidence for prosecution, conviction upheld.
Sentence excessive	N/A (State supported sentence within statutory range).	Sentence (30–40 years) was disproportionate given minimal criminal history and report scoring.	Court: No abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory limits and appropriately considered sentencing factors.

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay and confrontation-clause framework)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda waiver and custodial-interrogation standards)
U.S. v. Nazemian, 948 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1991) (language-conduit/factors for translated statements)
U.S. v. DiDomenico, 78 F.3d 294 (7th Cir. 1996) (translation treated as witness testimony of defendant’s statements)
Tapio-Reyes v. Excel Corp., 281 Neb. 15 (Neb. 2011) (courtroom interpretation standards; perfection not required)
State v. Montoya, 305 Neb. 581 (Neb. 2020) (evidentiary standards for admission and appellate review)
State v. Lierman, 305 Neb. 289 (Neb. 2020) (standards for reviewing hearsay rulings)
State v. Epp, 278 Neb. 683 (Neb. 2009) (residual hearsay factors and review)