UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

TOZZI, CAMPANELLA, and CELTNIEKS 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Private First Class MARIO J. LARAGUILLEN 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20150516 

Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division 

Samuel A. Schubert, Military Judge (arraignment) 

Kenneth W. Shahan, Military Judge (trial) 

Colonel Robert F. Resnick, Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Charles D. Lozano, JA; Captain Heather L. 

Tregle, JA; Captain Michael A. Gold, JA (on brief). 

For Appellee: Colonel Mark H. Sydenham, JA; Lieutenant Colonel A.G. Courie III, 

JA; Major John K. Choike, JA; Captain Scott L. Goble, JA (on brief). 

25 May 2016 

---------------------------------- 

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

----------------------------------

CAMPANELLA, Judge: 

 A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, 

pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of rape of a child in violation of Article 

120b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920b (2012) [hereinafter 

UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a dishonorable discharge, twenty 

months confinement, and reduction to the grade of E-1. Pursuant to a pretrial 

agreement, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as 

provides for a dishonorable discharge, eighteen months confinement, and a reduction 

to the grade of E-1. Appellant was credited with one day of pretrial confinement 

credit against his sentence. 

 This case is before us for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. Appellate 

counsel raises one assignment of error, which requires discussion but no relief. We 

find the issues raised by appellant, pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 

431 (C.M.A. 1982) to be meritless. 
LARAGUILLEN — ARMY 20150516 

2

BACKGROUND 

 

At trial, defense offered Defense Exhibits E and F, presentencing letters of 

support, into evidence. Both of these exhibits were written in Spanish. The exhibits 

were translated by an interpreter and read on the record in English to the court 

during sentencing. The military judge later entered the exhibits into evidence. 

The exhibits were properly attached to the record of trial and the transcript 

states, “The interpreter read Defense Exhibit E and Defense Exhibit F for 

identification to the court-martial.” The transcript of the record of trial, however, 

omitted the testimony of the interpreter as he translated the exhibits in English. The 

record of trial was authenticated and appellant failed to raise any error in his posttrial matters. 

On appeal, appellant asserts the omission of the interpreter’s translation on 

the record for Defense Exhibits E and F renders the transcript nonverbatim and the 

record of trial incomplete, necessitating relief under Rule for Courts-Martial 

[hereinafter R.C.M.] 1103(f). Subsequent to the filing of appellate briefs, we 

granted the government’s motion to attach the transcribed audio recorded testimony 

from appellant’s court-martial to the record of trial. The translated testimony 

constitutes three pages of transcript. The substance of Defense Exhibits E and F is 

that appellant is a “great friend” who was helpful at work. 

LAW AND DISCUSSION

“[T]he record of trial shall include a verbatim transcript of all sessions except 

sessions closed for deliberations and voting when [a]ny part of the sentence 

adjudged exceeds six months confinement. . . .” R.C.M. 1103(b)(2)(B) (emphasis 

added). UCMJ art. 54(c)(1)(A). “If testimony is given through an interpreter, a 

verbatim transcript must so reflect.” R.C.M. 1103(b)(2)(B), Discussion. Literal 

compliance with the term “verbatim,” meaning “[w]ord for word; in the same 

words,” is not required, but a “substantial” qualitative omission renders a transcript 

nonverbatim. United States v. Lashley, 14 M.J. 7, 8 (C.M.A. 1982). A substantial 

omission will raise a presumption of prejudice but it can be rebutted by 

reconstituting the omitted portion of the record. United States v. Harrow, 62 M.J. 

649, 654-55 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2006). 

Here, appellant’s sentence exceeded six months thereby triggering the 

requirement for a verbatim transcript. Under the circumstances, the record of trial is 

verbatim because the Defense Exhibits E and F were included in the record of trial 

and the transcript indicated the exhibits were translated to the judge by the 

interpreter. Rule for Courts-Martial 1103 requires a verbatim transcript but not 

necessarily a Spanish to English translation. 
LARAGUILLEN — ARMY 20150516 

3

Even if we were to find a substantial omission rendering the transcript 

nonverbatim, the government subsequently provided the actual transcribed audio 

recorded testimony rebutting any presumption of prejudice. After reviewing the 

transcribed audio recorded testimony, we are convinced that the omission of the 

English translation was not a substantial omission and it did not prejudice appellant 

or deny his opportunity for clemency. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon consideration of the entire record, the findings of guilty and the 

sentence as approved by the convening authority are AFFIRMED. 

Senior Judge TOZZI and Judge CELTNIEKS concur. 

FOR THE COURT: 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: