 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Torres6/19/2002
iting on the pad.
2. Discussion
What we have here is a tempest in a teapot. The phrases on the yellow pad were, while not the proverbial "smoking gun," relevant evidence. The fourth page of the pad was a pay and owe sheet associated with the sale of drugs. The first three pages contained English and Spanish phrases grouped together in a manner suggesting each was a translation of the other. Some of those phrases, while having no unique application to the sale of drugs, did have some utility in that regard. That they might have other uses and that all of the phrases might not be useful to a drug seller lessened but did not eliminate the probative value of the evidence.
It was reasonable for the trial court to have the Spanish phrases authoritatively translated into English to confirm that the grouped phrases were translations. Once the interpreter confirmed this, it was proper in one way or another to inform the jury. It might have been sufficient to explain that the grouped phrases were translations and that they were at least relatively accurate ones. We see nothing wrong, however, in supplying the jury with the interpreter's translations especially since, as defense counsel noted below, they were essentially the same and, we note, in no way were more harmful to the defense. We also note that in argument the prosecutor relied more often on the translation from the pad than that supplied by the interpreter.
Nor do we find error in telling the jury it was required to rely on the interpretations supplied by the court. In any event the direction was meaningless since only one juror could speak even "just a little bit" of Spanish and would hardly have undertaken a separate translation and since the translations provided by the pad and the interpreter were not materially different.
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
KREMER, P. J.
McDONALD, J.
|