William A. Paz v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 79A05-1603-CR-697

Victim Primativo Flores, a Teppanyaki employee, was found dead from multiple stab wounds and blunt trauma on Dec 25, 2014; DNA evidence connected blood at the apartment and in Paz’s vehicle to Flores and Paz.
William A. Paz and roommate Juan Alberto Imel Pop lived at Emerald Pines; Pop testified he saw Paz stab Flores repeatedly, wrap the body in a blanket, and load it into Paz’s Ford Expedition.
Police used surveillance and a bus ticket to link the victim to Teppanyaki; officers interviewed Spanish-speaking employees, including Paz, with LPD dispatcher Nirvana Grant providing translation at the restaurant interview (Teppanyaki interview).
Paz was transported to the police station, where he later asserted his right to remain silent and requested counsel; some statements from the Teppanyaki interview (audio and transcript) were played for the jury with Grant’s translation.
Paz testified at trial claiming Pop killed Flores; the jury convicted Paz of murder and obstruction of justice and sentenced him to an aggregate 45-year term.
On appeal Paz challenged (1) prosecutor questions he says referenced his pre-arrest silence and (2) admission/use of his translated statements by a non-certified interpreter (Grant), alleging both were fundamental error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor’s questions impermissibly used Paz’s pre-arrest silence	State: questions sought to explore what Paz told police at Teppanyaki and at the station, not to highlight silence	Paz: questions implicitly referenced his post-arrival invocation of the right to remain silent; this violated his Fifth Amendment rights and the motion in limine	No fundamental error; objections were sustained or cured, Paz did not request admonishment or mistrial, and the questioned lines did not inform the jury Paz remained silent at the station
Whether use of Paz’s Teppanyaki statements translated by a non-certified interpreter deprived him of a fair trial	State: Grant was an experienced LPD Spanish speaker; transcripts/audio were demonstrative and other certified interpreters were used at trial; any interpreter issues were explored on cross-examination	Paz: Grant was not Indiana-certified, had potential conflict as LPD employee, and her translation was used in the State’s case-in-chief, warranting reversal for fundamental error	No fundamental error; defense elicited limitations of Grant’s qualifications; multiple certified/qualified interpreters assisted at trial; statements were only part of overwhelming corroborating evidence (DNA, Pop’s testimony)

Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663 (Ind. 2014) (standards for reviewing prosecutorial misconduct and fundamental-error exception to waiver)
Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2006) (requirements to request admonishment and move for mistrial for improper argument)
Arrieta v. State, 878 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind. 2008) (roles and importance of interpreters in criminal proceedings)
Delarosa v. State, 938 N.E.2d 690 (Ind. 2010) (waiver consequences for failing to preserve prosecutorial misconduct claims)