State v. Montoya-Franco, 282 P.3d 939

Defendant convicted of murder, attempted aggravated murder, first-degree assault, unlawful use of a weapon, and conspiracy to commit murder.
Appeal challenges admission of translated statements by two detectives via interpreters Diaz and Byers during interviews when defendant spoke Spanish.
Trial court ruled, conditionally, that the translated statements could be admitted under OEC 803(28) residual hearsay if proper foundation was laid.
Remilly translated statements via Diaz and Remilly’s testimony described the content of defendant’s statements; defendant did not object on hearsay grounds at that time.
Byers translated statements to Boyce; defendant objected regarding Byers’ translation foundation as insufficient to support residual hearsay admissibility; trial court admitted Boydce’s testimony.
Court affirms conviction and distinguishes preservation issues for Remilly; concludes Byers’ foundation satisfies 803(28) and Rodriguez-Castillo limits apply to the tutor scenario rather than Byers’ translation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of translated statements under OEC 803(28).	Rodriguez-Castillo supports admission with proper foundation.	Lacks sufficient reliability/trustworthiness foundation.	Admissible under OEC 803(28) with adequate foundation.
Preservation of objection to Remilly’s testimony.	N/A	Objected to hearsay; preserved.	Unpreserved; not reviewed on appeal.
Reliability and methodology of Byers’ translation (consecutive translation) to satisfy residual exception.	Foundation shows fluency and interpretive skill; translations accurate.	Translation may add hearsay layer and may be unreliable.	Foundation satisfied; translation admissible under 803(28).

State v. Rodriguez-Castillo, 345 Or 39 (2008) (interpretation chain; tutor’s statements rely on residual exception analysis, key for interpreter chain)
State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335 (2000) (preservation requirements for objections)