holding that, to protect Sixth Amendment confrontation right, interpreter must be furnished to translate trial proceedings to defendant who does not speak and understand English language
How later courts described this case
- holding that, to protect Sixth Amendment confrontation right, interpreter must be furnished to translate trial proceedings to defendant who does not speak and understand English language
- holding that, when it is made known to the trial court that an accused does not speak and understand English, an interpreter must be provided for the benefit of the accused
- when it is made known to the trial court that an accused does not speak and understand English, an interpreter must be furnished to translate the trial proceedings to the accused; otherwise, the accused’s constitutional right of confrontation is denied
- stating defendants have a right to an interpreter if the trial judge is aware the defendant needs one
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Leon v. State, 25 S.W.3d 841 (2000)
lant has waived any complaint under article 38.30 and that Baltierra is inapposite.
The opinion
W. C. DAVIS, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority’s holding reversing this cause due to the failure of *560 the trial court to sua sponte furnish appellant with an interpreter.
The majority’s holding is grounded in the confrontation clauses of both the Federal and State Constitutions. To assure confrontation of witnesses and to provide sufficient opportunity to cross examine those witnesses, under the majority decision, a trial court, once aware that an accused cannot understand English, must furnish an interpreter to translate to the accused the trial proceedings, including the testimony of witnesses presented by the State.
Garcia v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 593 , 210 S.W.2d 574 (1948) is the foundation case upon which the majority builds. Garcia holds that the furnishing of an interpreter is preconditioned on two facts: (1) a showing that the accused could not speak or understand the English language, and (2) a timely request by accused for an interpreter. Once these prerequisites are established, the furnishing of an interpreter is a discretionary function and in exercising this discretion, the trial court may look to see if the accused’s right to confrontation is protected by another device. Garcia, supra.
The Garcia holding has been followed by this Court on several occasions. In Field v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 137 , 232 S.W.2d 717 (App.1950), failure to request an interpreter was held to be a waiver. In Salas v. State, 385 S.W.2d 859 (Tex.Cr.App.1965), there was no showing that the defendant was unable to understand English and, therefore, no abuse of discretion in failing to furnish an attorney. In Flores v. State, 509 S.W.2d 580 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), there was no showing that defendant could not understand or speak English.
The record before us indicates that appellant could not speak nor understand English. However, there was no request by appellant’s counsel for an interpreter. Further, the trial court appointed appellant an attorney who was fluent in Spanish and English. Therefore, under Garcia , there was no abuse of discretion. 1
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
DOUGLAS, J., joins.
. Ex parte Nanes, 558 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.Cr.App. 1977), granted habeas corpus relief based on the absence of an interpreter through the entire trial proceedings. In Nanes, the defendant did not speak or understand English and an interpreter used during portions of the trial stated that defendant appeared confused and in a state of shock. There is no indication in Nanes that the trial court appointed a Spanish-speaking attorney or otherwise sought to protect the defendant’s right to confront witnesses.