Title: State v. Nguyen

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Nguyen (2001-006); 173 Vt. 598; 795 A.2d 538

[Filed 14-Feb-2002]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 14-Mar-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-006

                             JANUARY TERM, 2002

State of Vermont 	             }	      APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.	                             }	      District Court of Vermont,
                                     }	      Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
Minh Nguyen	                     }
                                     }	      DOCKET NOS. 6777/6778-11-99Cncr

                                              Trial Judge: Michael S. Kupersmith

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant Minh Nguyen was convicted in the Chittenden District Court
  of two counts of  attempted second degree murder.  During the trial, he
  communicated with his attorney and the court  almost exclusively through a
  Vietnamese interpreter.  Defendant raises four arguments on appeal: (1)  he
  was denied his constitutional right to be present at every stage of his
  trial because he was denied  an interpreter at his arraignment; (2) he was
  denied due process at trial because the interpreter  assigned to him did
  not accurately translate the testimony, and the court committed plain error
  when  it did not hold an evidentiary hearing on defendant's concerns
  regarding the translation; (3) the record  for review on appeal is
  incomplete, because it does not contain the Vietnamese version of
  testimony,  and review cannot proceed without a new trial; and (4) the
  court committed plain error when it failed  to instruct the jury on the
  lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter.  We affirm.

       Defendant was charged with two counts of attempted second degree
  murder after he attacked  two men with a meat cleaver in a dispute over a
  wallet.  Defendant was born in Vietnam and does  not speak English
  fluently; he is also illiterate in both Vietnamese and English.  The
  investigating  police officers were able to communicate with defendant
  initially but eventually sought the aid of an  interpreter.  The Chittenden
  County Public Defender's Office represented defendant at arraignment,  at
  which the court queried whether an interpreter was necessary.  The public
  defender declined an  interpreter, stating that he and defendant could
  communicate sufficiently for the purposes of the  arraignment.  Defense
  counsel did, however, request an interpreter for defendant in all
  subsequent  proceedings.  After the public defender's office notified the
  court that it could not represent defendant  because of a conflict of
  interest, the court appointed a private attorney to represent defendant.

 

       At a bail review hearing and all subsequent proceedings except
  sentencing, interpreter Phi  Doane was present at the defense table,
  translating the proceedings so that defendant could  understand them. 
  Also, defense counsel used Doane's services to communicate with defendant. 
  Just  prior to jury selection, the court asked defendant if he was
  satisfied with the translation services of  Doane, and defendant approved. 
  The court also asked defense counsel if he was satisfied with  Doane's
  services.  Counsel agreed that defendant appeared to understand the
  proceedings through  Doane and that Doane was "immensely" helpful to him in
  communicating with his client.  During the  trial Doane had difficulty
  explaining some DNA evidence and some complicated legal concepts to 
  defendant.  But, neither defendant nor his counsel objected to Doane's
  translation.

       In addition to Doane, the court appointed Phi Nguyen to serve as an
  additional interpreter for  the testimony of witnesses who testified in the
  Vietnamese language.  Rather than have Phi Doane  translate the English
  translation of a witness's Vietnamese testimony back into Vietnamese, the
  court  asked the Vietnamese witnesses to elevate their voices so that
  defendant could hear their testimony.   Phi Nguyen admitted that on a
  couple occasions he had some minor difficulties translating a  witness's
  testimony, but he promptly clarified the testimony with the court and the
  court properly  informed the jury of the clarifications.  Again, neither
  defendant nor defense counsel made any  objection to Phi Nguyen's
  translation.

       At the charge conference, both parties agreed that the jury should
  receive instructions on  attempted second degree murder and the lesser
  included offense of aggravated assault.  Both parties  also agreed that
  they did not want the jury instructed on the other lesser included offense
  of  attempted voluntary manslaughter.  The jury found defendant guilty of
  attempted second degree  murder on both counts.

       After the verdict on January 27, 2000, the court gave defendant until
  February 11 - the  required ten days - to file post-trial motions. 
  Defendant failed to file any post-trial motions within  the deadline set by
  the court and the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure.  See V.R.Cr.P. 29(c) 
  (judgment of acquittal); 33 (new trial); 34 (arrest of judgment).  During
  the period between the  verdict and sentencing, a period of almost a year,
  defendant started to raise his dissatisfaction with  his lawyer and also
  with Phi Doane.  In May, he apparently filed a pro-se post conviction
  relief  (PCR) petition in the superior court, and a copy of the petition
  was eventually provided to the district  court.  The PCR petition basically
  complained of ineffective assistance of counsel but added that "the 
  translator, Phi Doane, is known to the alleged victims, and a friend of my
  lawyer."  The court also  received two letters written on defendant's
  behalf complaining of the same problems.  At a June 27  sentencing hearing,
  the court addressed these concerns by allowing defendant's trial attorney
  to  withdraw and by appointing a new interpreter to replace Phi Doane. 
  Replacement counsel sought to  file a motion for a new trial, but it was
  denied as untimely.  On December 19, defendant was  sentenced to two
  concurrent terms of forty-five years to life.

       On appeal, defendant first claims that he was denied his
  constitutional right to a fair trial  because he was denied an interpreter
  at arraignment.  We recognize that both the federal and  Vermont
  constitutions give a defendant the right to be present during every stage
  of his trial.  U.S. 

 

  Const. amends. V, VI, XIV; Vt. Const. ch. I, art. 10.  This right is not
  absolute, but it is "fundamental  to the basic legitimacy of the criminal
  process."  In re Cardinal, 162 Vt. 418, 419,