Court of Appeal of Louisiana Finds Translators Don’t Need to be Certified if They Have Personal Knowledge

Similar to Federal Rule of Evidence 604, La. C.E. art. 604 provides that

An interpreter is subject to the provisions of this Code relating to qualification as an expert and the administration of an oath or affirmation that he will make a true translation.

Given this, I’m not sure of the propriety of the recent opinion of the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit in State v. Mejia, 2023 WL 8249642 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2023).

In Mejia, the 16 year-old defendant was charged with aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary.

James Carollo, formerly with the JPSO, conducted an interview of defendant that was audio and video recorded. Portions of the interview were played for the jury. He testified that before taking defendant’s statement, he went through the Juvenile Rights form with both defendant and his mother, obtaining assistance from another JPSO officer, Detective Jesus Falcon, who served as an interpreter. He said that the form was written in Spanish and English, and defendant was advised of his rights in the presence of his mother. He indicated that defendant’s mother was not in the room for the entirety of the interview because defendant did not want her present.

JPSO Detective Jesus Falcon testified that his first language is Spanish, his second language is English, and he often translates for other parties who speak only Spanish. He confirmed that he assisted in advising defendant and his mother of defendant’s rights, and stated that the entire conversation with defendant and his mother was captured on video, which was played for the jury while he translated. He read the form to defendant and his mother in Spanish and filled out the form as they read along. Detective Falcon stated that defendant could speak English. He indicated that defendant signed the form and waived his rights, and that Detective Falcon and defendant’s mother then left the room.

Subsequently, at trial, Detective Falcon translated for the jury the portion of the video pertaining to notifying defendant and his mother of defendant’s rights. After he was convicted, the defendant appealed, claiming that this translation violated La. C.E. art. 604. In response, the court ruled as follows:

La. C.E. art. 604 provides that an interpreter is subject to the provisions of the Code of Evidence relating to qualification as an expert and the administration of an oath or affirmation that he will make a true translation. An interpreter of foreign-language testimony must be competent and qualified by virtue of knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, have no substantial interest in the proceedings, and be sworn to give a true bilateral translation of the questions and answers given during testimony….An interpreter should be a neutral and detached individual whose abilities are first screened by the court and who is sworn to make a true, literal and complete bilateral translation….

We have located no Louisiana cases directly on point, but in People v. Munoz-Casteneda, 300 P.3d 944, 947 (Colo. App. 2012), cert. denied, 2013 WL 1409900 (Colo. Apr. 8, 2013), the defendant contended that the trial court erred by allowing the detective who interrogated him to translate the recorded interrogation during his trial testimony without meeting the requirements for interpreters set forth in Federal Rules of Evidence 604 and 702. The court discussed the functional distinction between court-certified interpreters and fact witnesses, concluding that as long as the translating witness has personal knowledge of the relevant conversation or evidence, is capable of testifying to a translation of its contents without misleading the jury, and is subject to cross-examination, he may testify without first being certified as an interpreter….

Here, Detective Falcon was present at the interview only to interpret defendant’s rights for his mother. Although Detective Falcon was not certified or sworn by the court as an official interpreter, he had personal knowledge of the relevant conversation, there is no indication that he was not sufficiently capable of translating a recording of the conversation without misleading the jury, and he was subject to extensive cross-examination by defense counsel. As such, we see no error in the trial court’s decision to overrule defendant’s objection and to permit Detective Falcon to translate for the jury his conversation with defendant and his mother.

Where this all falls apart for me is the assumption in both Mejia and Munoz-Casteneda that the witness was “sufficiently capable of translating.” That’s the whole point of the expert certification under Rule 702. I don’t see how a court can waive away the expert certification requirement and simply state that it appears the witness was sufficiently capable of translating.

-CM