AURELIO FREGOSO JARA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE SAN ANTONIO JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.
L.A. No. 30788
Supreme Court of California
May 2, 1978
21 Cal.3d 181
Dawn Scott, Wilmont A. Odom, Daniel M. Luevano, John E. McDermott, Robert T. Olmos and Richard A. Rothschild for Plaintiff and Appellant.
OPINION
CLARK, J.-Appeal from judgment denying petition for writ of mandate or prohibition to compel respondent municipal court to appoint an interpreter in a civil action. We affirm the judgment.
A property damage action arising from an automobile accident was filed against appellant in the municipal court. Represented by a staff attorney of the Southeast Legal Aid Center founded under the Office of Economic Opportunity, he filed an answer and cross-complaint. Alleging indigency and inability to speak or understand English, appellant moved the court to appoint an interpreter skilled in English and Spanish, without expense to himself. The court denied the motion.
Appellant then commenced the instant writ proceeding in the superior court. That court concluded appellant does not have a common law right to an interpreter, and that refusal to appoint an interpreter for an indigent litigant in a civil case does not constitute abuse of discretion or denial of either due process or equal protection of the law.
STATUTORY BASIS FOR APPOINTMENT
No statutory basis exists for appointment of an interpreter at public expense to assist non-English speaking litigants.
A trial court has inherent power to waive its filing fees to accommodate indigents in civil litigation. (Martin v. Superior Court (1917) 176 Cal. 289, 290 et seq.; Earls v. Superior Court (1971) 6 Cal.3d 109, 113.) Appellate courts also have inherent power to waive filing fees for indigent civil litigants. (Ferguson v. Keays (1971) 4 Cal.3d 649, 653 et seq.) However, appellant does not seek waiver of ordinary court costs or fees. Rather, he seeks retention of an interpreter to be paid for by the county or some other public agency.
In Ferguson, we did not reach the question whether indigents must be given funds to pay third party charges in civil cases. (Id., at p. 654.) Subsequent cases have refused to require counties to provide indigent civil litigants with counsel or with appellate transcripts. (Leslie v. Roe (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 104, 107; Hunt v. Hackett (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 134, 137-138.)
Providing for appointed counsel for indigent prisoner defendants in Payne v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 908, this court expressly pointed out that we do not possess the power to require expenditure of public funds for the purpose. Rather, attorneys are expected to serve gratuitously as part of their public responsibilities. (Id., at p. 920, fn. 6.)
Determining whether indigent civil litigants should be provided interpreters at public expense, we first weigh the problem by considering the alternatives open to the litigants. In contemporary urban society, the non-English speaking individual has access to a variety of sources for language assistance. Members of his family, friends or neighbors—born or schooled here—may provide aid. Private organizations also exist to aid immigrants. (Cf. Guerrero v. Carleson (1973) 9 Cal.3d 808, 813.) When counsel does not speak the litigant‘s language, he too may secure aid from such persons and organizations to communicate with his client. Courtroom proceedings, of course, are controlled by counsel, and the absence of an interpreter for his client to explain court proceedings as they occur has not been shown to constitute a substantial burden.
Appellant questions the competence of family members and friends to interpret complex legal proceedings. However, court certified interpreters
Appellant relies upon Gardiana v. Small Claims Court (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 412 holding that in small claims court volunteer interpreters should be appointed when one of the parties does not speak English, and if volunteers are unavailable, an interpreter should be appointed and compensated at public expense. In support of the latter conclusion the court reasoned that
The court‘s reasoning must be viewed in light of the nature of a small claims court, and when this is done the case is clearly distinguishable. That court functions informally and expeditiously. There exist no attorneys, no pleadings, and no specific rules of evidence. The awards, while made in accordance with substantive law, result from common sense. The spirit of compromise and conciliation attends the proceedings, requiring participant comprehension. (Id., at pp. 417-418; Sanderson v. Niemann (1941) 17 Cal.2d 563, 573-574.) The parties are usually their own witnesses and frequently the only ones. It is apparent that unless the non-English speaking party has an interpreter he is effectively barred from access to the small claims proceeding. By way of contrast, appellant possesses an attorney capable of fully representing him in the municipal court proceeding.
Because language assistance to indigent but represented litigants appears available, we are satisfied there is no need for courts to require appointment of interpreters at public expense to assist litigants.
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR APPOINTMENT
Appellant contends that refusal to appoint an interpreter denies him an opportunity to be heard, depriving him of access to the courts in violation of the constitutional guarantees of both due process and equal protection of the law. There has been no showing as to whether non-English speaking litigants, able to afford paid interpreters, are likely to secure them for consulting with counsel and translating legal proceedings.
One of the bases for distinguishing Boddie, recognized in Payne v. Superior Court, supra, 17 Cal.3d 908, 916-917, is that the indigent had alternative means to secure the relief sought—means other than resort to the trial court itself for aid. (United States v. Kras, supra, 409 U.S. at p. 445; Ortwein v. Schwab, supra, 410 U.S. at pp. 659-660.)
As pointed out above, the non-English speaking litigant ordinarily has alternative sources for language assistance to communicate with counsel and other community professionals and officials. The court proceedings being controlled by counsel, we further suggest that appellant is in no worse position than the numerous represented litigants who elect not to be present in court at all.
The Constitution mandates expense-paid court access in limited cases. Petitioner has not shown his access to be constitutionally impaired.
The judgment is affirmed.
Mosk, J., Richardson, J., and Manuel, J., concurred.
TOBRINER, J.—I dissent.
Appellant Aurelio Jara has been sued in municipal court for damages arising out of an automobile accident. He attests that he is indigent and that he can neither speak nor understand the English language. In California, all courtroom proceedings are conducted in English. (
As I shall explain, I believe that the municipal court erred in concluding that it lacked the authority, under any circumstances, to appoint an interpreter to assist a defendant in a civil case. In my view, a trial court clearly has the inherent authority to provide an interpreter for an indigent defendant in a civil action if the defendant lacks alternative means by which to obtain a translation of the proceedings against him. Indeed, I believe that in such circumstances fundamental considerations of due process require it to do so.
Therefore, I would remand the matter to the municipal court for it to determine whether appellant requires the appointment of an interpreter so that he may meaningfully participate in the proceedings, or whether he has alternative means by which to obtain a reasonable translation of the proceedings. I believe the majority err in precluding, in all circumstances, the trial court from exercising such inherent authority and discretion.
At issue here is the question whether our judicial system will allow an indigent defendant in a civil case who does not speak nor understand the English language to be deprived of his interest in his property (including future earnings), which he may desperately need in order to survive, in a proceeding that he does not, and, because of his indigency, cannot hope to understand. I believe this issue raises basic constitutional and human questions that the majority does not begin to confront.
The majority claims that an interpreter for a party would perform a “burdensome function,” in excess of that authorized under
The majority argues that the absence of a court-appointed interpreter in such circumstances works no deprivation of due process, because alternative sources of assistance are ostensibly available to the litigant
In addition, in California, as in our nation as a whole, those people whose principal or sole language is not English are, unfortunately, most often part of educationally and economically deprived subgroups, and may be the persons least likely to be able to provide for the defendant a competent and coherent translation of sophisticated court proceedings. Therefore, whether in a given case the defendant has access to effective, alternative resources or whether he requires the assistance of a court-appointed interpreter at the expense of the county must lie within the sound determination and discretion of the court.
The majority argues that the absence of an interpreter for the non-English-speaking defendant has not been shown to constitute a “substantial burden.” I cannot agree with the majority‘s assessment of the confusion, the despair, and the cynicism suffered by those who in intellectual isolation must stand by as their possessions and dignity are stripped from them by a Kafka-esque ritual deemed by the majority to constitute, nonetheless, a fair trial.
We said in Sokol v. Public Utilities Commission (1966) 65 Cal.2d 247, 254, “What is due process depends on the circumstances. It varies with the subject matter and the necessities of the situation. [Citation.] Its content is a function of many variables, including the nature of the right affected, the degree of danger caused by the proscribed condition or activity, and the availability of prompt remedial measures.” Thus, in analyzing the requirements of due process in the instant case, we must draw our guidance from those “fundamental principles of liberty and justice that lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions.” (Palko v. Connecticut (1937) 302 U.S. 319, 328.)
This court observed little more than a year ago that “[f]ew liberties in America have been more zealously guarded than the right to protect one‘s property in a court of law. This nation has long realized that none of our freedoms would be secure if any person could be deprived of his possessions without an opportunity to defend them ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ [citation]. In a variety of contexts, the right of access to the courts has been reaffirmed and strengthened throughout our 200-year history.” (Payne v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 908, 911.) “Without such a ‘legal system,’ social organization and cohesion are virtually impossible; with the ability to seek regularized resolution of conflicts individuals are capable of independent action that enables them to strive for achievements without the anxieties that would beset them in a disorganized society.” (Boddie v. Connecticut, supra, 401 U.S. 371, 374.)
Furthermore, for much of our nation‘s history many cultural and ethnic minorities have found themselves excluded from the benefits and privileges of full membership in our society. For many of these people who speak a language other than English the key to their experience of separation has been a virtually insurmountable inability to communicate with either individuals outside of their own culture or the institutions of our system of government. (See Guerrero v. Carleson (1973) 9 Cal.3d 808, 817-818 (Tobriner, J., dis.).) In particular, as the English language is the principle medium of communication in any court proceeding, a person‘s ability to use and understand the language is critical to the fundamental fairness of the proceedings. (See Chang & Araujo, Interpreters for the Defense: Due Process for the Non-English-Speaking Defendant (1975) 63 Cal.L.Rev. 801.) In Castro v. State of California (1970) 2 Cal.3d 223, 242 this court removed one fundamental barrier to full participation in our
These considerations assume an even greater importance when they involve as they do here, the indigent defendant in a civil action. We recognized in Payne that the defense of one‘s property interests in a civil action constitutes a fundamental right which “equals in constitutional significance the right to dissolve a marriage that was protected in Boddie.” (Payne v. Superior Court, supra, 17 Cal.3d 908, 916.) Furthermore, a defendant is drawn involuntarily into the judicial system. He becomes thereby subject to its immense powers, and the judicial proceeding becomes his only means of protecting his interests. Consequently, the denial of the defendant‘s full access to the court process “raises grave problems for its legitimacy.” (Boddie v. Connecticut, supra, 401 U.S. 371, 376.)
The question of the right of a defendant to an interpreter has arisen most often in the context of criminal proceedings. In that context, courts have generally recognized that if the criminal defendant is so unfamiliar with the English language that he cannot either communicate his testimony, or understand those of others involved in the proceedings, he is entitled as a matter of constitutional right to be furnished with the assistance of an interpreter. Although the courts have posited this right in part on the basis of the defendant‘s rights of confrontation and to the effective assistance of counsel in a criminal action, they have made clear that its basic source and nature run deeper.
In In re Muraviov (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 604, for example, the court reversed the defendant‘s conviction on due process grounds, holding: “There can be no doubt that due process of law and a defendant‘s constitutional rights are violated where [his] ignorance or inability to intelligently understand his legal and constitutional rights render it impossible for him to understand the nature of the proceedings being taken against him . . . .” (Id., at p. 606.) In People v. Annett (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 858, the court also based the non-English-speaking accused‘s right to the assistance of an interpreter on due process grounds. “[The failure of a trial court to appoint an interpreter for a defendant who has requested one, or whose conduct has
In the leading case of United States ex rel. Negron v. State of New York (2d Cir. 1970) 434 F.2d 386 the defendant, a 23-year-old Puerto Rican, faced a charge of murder. He could neither speak nor understand English. Neither his attorney nor the judge could speak Spanish. Twelve of the fourteen witnesses testified in English. In reversing his conviction the court held that the right denied to the defendant was more consequential than the right to confrontation. Rather, it involved “[c]onsiderations of fairness, the integrity of the fact-finding process, and the potency of our adversary system of justice . . . .” (Id., at p. 389.) “[A]s a matter of simple humaneness, Negron deserved more than to sit in total incomprehension as the trial proceeded. Particularly inappropriate in this nation where many languages are spoken is a callousness to the crippling language handicap of a newcomer to its shores . . . .” (Id., at p. 390; see also United States v. Carrion (1st Cir. 1973) 488 F.2d 12, cert. den. (1974) 416 U.S. 907; United States v. Desist (2d Cir. 1967) 384 F.2d 889; United States ex rel. Navarro v. Johnson (E.D.Pa. 1973) 365 F.Supp. 676.)
Fully in consort with the considerations involved in these criminal proceedings, in Gardiana v. Small Claims Court (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 412 the court expressly held for the first time that an indigent, non-English-speaking litigant in a civil small claims proceeding was entitled to be furnished with a court-appointed interpreter at county expense if no competent volunteer interpreters were available. Recognizing the fundamental importance of the use of language in the small claims proceeding, the court reasoned that its statutory duty to appoint an interpreter when the prescribed circumstances so required (see
We have long recognized that a court, as a part of one of the three branches of government established by the Constitution “has within it the
The very limited nature of the statutory provisions indicates that they were not designed to provide an exclusive basis for the exercise of the court‘s power. (See Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 630-631.) In any case, as I have concluded that an indigent civil defendant possesses a constitutionally protected right to a court-appointed interpreter if no other means of assistance are available, a court necessarily has the inherent power to render the constitutional right effective, and the Legislature could not properly derogate this power. (Byers v. Smith (1935) 4 Cal.2d 209, 214.)
Moreover, courts have traditionally viewed the inherent power to appoint an interpreter as supplemental to, and more extensive than, the statutory provisions. “. . . [I]t is undoubtedly the rule not only that courts of general jurisdiction have inherent power to swear interpreters whenever such a course is necessary to the due administration of justice [citations], but that the power may be exercised to supplement existing statutes the provisions of which do not extend to all cases in which such a necessity appears [citations].” (People v. Walker (1924) 69 Cal.App. 475, 486.) “In every court there also rests the inherent power to call interpreters for witnesses under proper circumstances [citation]; and it is, of course, the duty of a court to call an interpreter whenever such circumstances arise.” (People v. Holtzclaw (1926) 76 Cal.App. 168, 171.) “At common law the court has not only the right, but also the duty, to make such appointment where the necessity exists. [Citation.]
Although the majority raises the question of the power of a court to approve the payment of third party fees with county funds in the absence of the express authorization of the Legislature, that specific issue is not presented here. This court has often affirmed a court‘s inherent power to waive its own fees and costs (Martin v. Superior Court (1917) 176 Cal. 289, 299; Earls v. Superior Court (1971) 6 Cal.3d 109, 113; Ferguson v. Keays (1971) 4 Cal.3d 649, 652; Isrin v. Superior Court (1965) 63 Cal.2d 153, 165), and, in the absence of a legislative enactment to the contrary, properly to apply funds appropriated to the court to any legitimate purpose of the court. (Millholen v. Riley, supra, 211 Cal. 29, 31.)
Interpreters’ fees are treated by statute as “costs” which may be fixed as the court deems “reasonable” and which may be “apportioned and charged to the several parties in such proportion as the court may determine . . . .” (
Only a generation ago, in Griffin v. Illinois (1956) 351 U.S. 12, 19, our high court unequivocally declared that “[t]here can be no equal justice when the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.” Even
In Castro v. State of California, supra, 2 Cal.3d 223, we refused to allow a person‘s language, and his inability to understand English, to preclude him from exercising his fundamental right to vote. It is indeed anomalous that, by today‘s decision, an heir to the same “great and gracious culture, identified with the birth of California,” (id., at p. 243) is effectively denied the equally fundamental right to a fair and meaningful hearing in which to defend his interests.
For these reasons I would reverse and remand the case to the municipal court with directions to determine, under the facts of the present case, whether a court-appointed interpreter should be provided to appellant.
Bird, C. J., and Newman, J., concurred.