rejecting defendant’s due process claim that use of detective as interpreter during interrogation was improper because claim was “premised on authorities and standards relating to court interpreters at trial” that were inapplicable because detective was “functionfing] as a facilitator for the police investigation,” not “as a court interpreter”
How later courts described this case
- rejecting defendant’s due process claim that use of detective as interpreter during interrogation was improper because claim was “premised on authorities and standards relating to court interpreters at trial” that were inapplicable because detective was “functionfing] as a facilitator for the police investigation,” not “as a court interpreter”
- CALJIC No. 2.01 must be given where prosecution substantially relies of circumstantial evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*583 KENNARD, J., Dissenting.
Because I would grant defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and vacate the judgment of conviction (see In re Marquez, post, p. 584 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 , 822 P.2d 435 ] [dis. opn. of Kennard, J.]), I would dismiss the appeal as moot.
Mosk, J., concurred.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied March 18, 1992. Mosk, J., and Kennard, J. were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.