Opinion ID: 2633602
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Translation of Extradition Documents with Public Funds

Text: ¶ 24 As part of its decision to extradite, the Mexican court authored and submitted a 76-page document to the United States Department of Justice. French refers to the document as the Acuerdo. Br. of Appellant at 30. Under CrR 3.1(f), [4] French brought a motion to have the document translated into English. The trial court denied the motion, finding it was not necessary under CrR 3.1(f) and noting the cost was prohibitive. [5] French now argues the trial court erred by denying his motion. French contends he cannot show the translation is necessary because he cannot know what information the Acuerdo contains until it is translated. However, he speculates that several issues could arise, including the doctrine of specialty [6] or the principle of dual criminality. [7] French also argues the trial court's denial of a translator violates Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 77, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), which requires the State to provide access to the raw materials necessary to establish an effective defense. ¶ 25 The State argues that the trial court had the discretion to deny the request, and French did not meet his burden of showing the translation was necessary. ¶ 26 Whether expert services are necessary for an indigent defendant's adequate defense is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Young, 125 Wash.2d 688, 693, 888 P.2d 142 (1995). In Young, we examined several Court of Appeals opinions analyzing psychological evaluations under CrR 3.1(f). In discussing the cases, we noted the appellate courts generally did not find an abuse of discretion in cases where the psychological evaluations would not affect criminal liability nor would they be used to rebut similar, adverse evidence presented by the State. We concluded these opinions stood for the proposition that CrR 3.1(f) did not mandate the expenditure of public funds for psychological evaluations when the evaluations would be used only for sentencing purposes. We found these cases were in line with the general rule that the trial court has the discretion to approve requests for public funds and that decision will be upheld unless the court abuses its discretion. Young, 125 Wash.2d at 692-93, 888 P.2d 142. ¶ 27 The trial court here found French's request was not necessary because the judge was limited to sentencing French within the standard range applicable to his six convictions. French failed to show how translation of the Acuerdo was necessary for an adequate defense at his sentencing hearing. French had already been found guilty of the six charges; thus the Acuerdo could not affect the convictions. Moreover, the State was not seeking to introduce similar, adverse evidence at sentencing. Under the terms of the extradition, as outlined in the letter from the United States Department of Justice, Clerk's Papers at 303-04, the State was precluded from seeking a sentence of life imprisonment or death, and from seeking additional fines. The trial court was aware that it could sentence French only within the standard range for the crimes for which he had already been convicted. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for public funds under CrR 3.1(f). ¶ 28 We also find the facts of this case do not violate Ake. In Ake, the United States Supreme Court found the defendant was entitled to public funds for expert psychiatric assistance during both the trial and the sentencing phase. The Court found the assistance was necessary at sentencing because Ake's future dangerousness would be at issue and a finding of future dangerousness would directly affect Ake's sentence. Ake, 470 U.S. at 86-87, 105 S.Ct. 1087. Thus, Ake is in line with our discussion above requiring the expenditure of public funds only when the request affects liability or is necessary to rebut similar, adverse evidence presented by the State. Here, the State was not seeking an exceptional sentence. The trial judge, in his order denying the motion, explicitly stated he understood he could not sentence French outside of the standard range for the six convictions. The trial court's decision to deny the request for translation does not conflict with Ake.