Opinion ID: 2584774
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discussions Between Interpreter and Witnesses

Text: Defendant contends that unreported discussions at trial between the interpreters and three witnesses violated his right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, his right to due process under the federal Constitution, his state constitutional right to an interpreter, his right under California Rules of Court, rule 2.890(b) to a complete and accurate interpretation of everything that was said during the testimony of a witness, and his due process right to a record that is sufficient to permit adequate and effective appellate review.
Witnesses Gabriel Hau Cruz, Francisco Piceno, and Victor Can testified in Spanish. Their testimony was translated into English by court-approved interpreters. The record reflects the following exchanges during that testimony.

[Prosecutor]: Okay. Now when he first came up, Gabriel, we are just talking about the first part of the incident. [¶] Okay? [¶] He put the gun to you and he took your watch and put the gun to Luis. [¶] Did you see him take property from anyone else at the beginning of the incident? [Witness]: Well, I only saw[¶] I didn't see that he took anything from him. But only[¶] I saw when I The Court: Sir The Witness: When I was asked if they had taken something from my brother. My brother-in-law. The Court: Sir, I want you to do me a favor here. [¶] You will be out of here a lot quicker if you listen carefully to the question and simply answer the question that is asked. [¶] They will get this entire story out little by little, but just listen to the question carefully and take your time. [¶] I think the last question was at any time during this incident did you see property taken from anyone other than yourself. [¶] Yes or no. The Witness: No. The Court: All right. [¶] Next question. [Prosecutor]: At some point after he came up and tried to rob the group that you were with, Gabriel, did he drop the gun? [Witness]: Yes. Q What was he doing with the gun right before he dropped the gun? The Interpreter: Your honor, let me inquire. The Court: Do so, please. The Witness: He only hit my brother with the gun.
[Defense counsel]: Now who was the person that he asked for? [¶] Do you remember the name? [Witness]: A He only asked for Eftie (phonetic). Q Can you spell that for us? A I do not know how you write that. Mr. Clark [defense counsel]: May I ask the interpreter to give me a phonetic spelling? The Court: Can you ask him if he is giving initials or giving a name. (The interpreter conferred with the witness.) The witness: Only a name. Eftie

[Prosecutor]: Now at some point when you were at the hospital, did the police come out and interview you? [Witness]: Yes. Q Do you remember them showing you different photographs? A Yes. Q And did you make a selection of one person in one of the photographs that looked familiar? A Yes. Q And what do you remember telling the police about the photo that you picked out? A That it was the first time I see him The Interpreter: May I inquire, your honor? The Court: Yes. (The Interpreter conferred with the Witness.) The Witness: That it was my first time that I seen that picture up to that moment. [Prosecutor]: Now when you looked at that photograph, did you tell the police: [¶] That's definitely him, or did you tell them: [¶] That looks similar to him, [¶] or did you tell them something else? [Witness]: I said it looked like him.
[Defense counsel]: How tall was the gunman, approximately? [Witness]: A About one and seven meters. Q One and seven tenths meters? A One meter, seven centimeters. The Court: Are you sure that is what he said, Mr. Interpreter? (The Interpreter conferred with the witness.) [Witness]: I don't know exactly the measurement. The Court: I know. I just wanted to know what you said. [¶] Mr. Clark [defense counsel] said 1.7 meters and the interpreter said one meter and seven centimeters. [¶] Which was it if either? The Witness: Since I am 165 The Interpreter: I'm sorry. The Witness: Since I am 175, then I would say he was about 170. The Court: Are you talking weight or height? The Witness: Height. The Court: Height? The Witness: Yes. The Court: You are talking centimeters then, I take it. The Witness: yes. [¶] I am talking about meters and centimeters.
The record reflects the following during the prosecution's penalty phase direct examination of Victor Can concerning prior violent conduct of defendant in being involved in an assault on Can with a knife: [Prosecutor]: And what did you do as a result of this group surrounding you and at knifepoint demanding your money? [Witness]: Well, I told them that I didn't have anything. Q Okay. [¶] How afraid were you when they were doing this to you? A Well, the truth is a lot. [¶] I didn't know what to do. I was there alone at the bus stop. Q And at some point, it is your testimony, that you see the police driving by? A Yes. Q And that is still while you have the knife to your throat? A Yes. And I said: [¶] And if I have to die, I would rather die here like this. [¶] So then I got up and the officer saw me. Q And what happens at that point? A So then the officer arrived and two of them ran this way and the other two ran this way and then the officer came and asked me what happened (indicating). Q And at some point after you told the officer what happened, did the officer catch some of the people involved? A Yes. Q And over the next 10 or 15 minutes, did various police officers bring four of the five guys back to you so you could get a look at them? A Yes. Because the officer put me in his patrol car. Q All right. [¶] Did you identify those three, recognize and indentify those three, as three of the four robbers? A Yes. Q Now, Mr. Can, I don't want you to guess, but do you remember today what those three looked like? The Interpreter: Your honor, may I ask for a clarification? The Court: Yes. (Interpreter spoke with witness.) [Witness]: Since I came in here, I saw him right from here as if I were in front of him right now. [¶] Yes. Uh-huh. [Prosecutor]: Again, I am not asking you to guess, but do you recognize anybody in court today as being one of the three that the police caught? A Well, if I see his face, I do. Q All right. [¶] Can you say whether the gentleman in the orange jump suit at the end of the table is one of the three or not? [¶] Again, I don't want you to guess, but do you remember the face well enough to tell me if he was one of the three? A Well, the truth is The Interpreter: Your honor, may I inquire? The Court: Yes. (The interpreter conferred with the witness.) [Witness]: Well the truth is, the way he is wearing his hair now, it's not the way he had his hair then. [Prosecutor]: Okay. The Court: Indicating the defendant for the record. [¶] The record should reflect that the defendant has had a haircut as well since we have come back in court having shaved it over the weekend. [Prosecutor]: Mr. Can, what did you do after the police took those three suspects to jail for robbing you? [Witness]: They took me to the police station on Temple and Rampart. And then The Interpreter: You honor, may I inquire. The Court: Yes. (The interpreter conferred with the witness.) The Witness: Then the officer at 1:00 in the morning took me to work.
(7) In a criminal proceeding, an interpreter may perform three interrelated but distinct roles: (1) as a witness interpreter, to enable questioning of witnesses who do not speak English; (2) as a proceedings interpreter, to assist a non-English-speaking defendant to understand the exchanges at trial among attorneys, witnesses, and the court; and (3) as a defense interpreter, to enable a non-English-speaking defendant to communicate with the defendant's English-speaking attorney. ( People v. Aguilar (1984) 35 Cal.3d 785, 790 [200 Cal.Rptr. 908, 677 P.2d 1198] ( Aguilar ).) (8) The right to an interpreter has its underpinnings in a number of state and federal constitutional rights. These include a defendant's rights to due process, to confrontation, to effective assistance of counsel, and to be present at trial. ( People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1005, 1011 [232 Cal.Rptr. 132, 728 P.2d 202].) The California Constitution provides that a criminal defendant who does not understand English has a right to an interpreter throughout the proceedings. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 14.) In addition, California Rules of Court, rule 2.890(b) (former rule 984.4(b)) states that an interpreter must interpret accurately, without embellishing, omitting, or editing, and when interpreting for a witness, the interpreter must interpret everything that is said during the witness's testimony. Defendant here asserts that the unreported exchanges between the interpreters and the three witnesses quoted above violated the rights just mentioned and compels reversal of the judgment against him. The Attorney General argues that defendant's failure to object at trial precludes him from now asserting a denial of his right to the assistance of an interpreter. Defendant, citing Aguilar, supra, 35 Cal.3d 785, maintains that the failure to object does not operate as a waiver of his right. Defendant correctly points out that in Aguilar, supra, 35 Cal.3d at page 794, this court held that a defense counsel's acquiescence would not result in a defendant's waiver of the state Constitution's provision entitling a non-English-speaking defendant to an interpreter throughout the proceedings. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 14.) Such a waiver, this court said, would require an affirmative showing in the record that the defendant personally waived the right, and that the defendant made the waiver intelligently and voluntarily. Aguilar, however, is not controlling here. Unlike Aguilar, this case does not involve the state constitutional right of a non-English-speaking criminal defendant to be provided with a proceedings interpreter; rather, it concerns alleged error involving witness interpreters. (9) The Attorney General contends that defendant's failure to object presents an issue of forfeiture, not waiver. As we have observed previously, forfeiture results from the failure to invoke a right, while waiver denotes an express relinquishment of a known right; the two are not the same. ( In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880-881 & fn. 1 [55 Cal.Rptr.3d 716, 153 P.3d 282].) (10) `[A]s a general rule, the failure to object to errors committed at trial relieves the reviewing court of the obligation to consider those errors on appeal. [Citations.] This applies to claims based on statutory violations, as well as claims based on violations of fundamental constitutional rights. [Citations.]' ( People v. Kennedy (2005) 36 Cal.4th 595, 612 [31 Cal.Rptr.3d 160, 115 P.3d 472].) The reason for this rule is to allow errors to be corrected by the trial court and to prevent gamesmanship by the defense. ( In re Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 881; In re Seaton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 193, 198-199 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 633, 95 P.3d 896].) We see no reason why the general rule of forfeiture should not be applied to violations of rules of court or to claims of error relating to interpreters for the witnesses. Here, each of the claimed violations of defendant's rights could easily have been addressed and corrected in the trial court had defendant objected. His failure to do so precludes him from now asserting errors relating to the witness interpreters. (See People v. Aranda (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 230, 237 [230 Cal.Rptr. 498] [failure to object to competency of interpreter during trial precludes issue from being raised on appeal].) We likewise reject defendant's claim that because of the unreported discussions between the interpreters and witnesses, the record is insufficient to permit adequate and effective appellate review. The transcripts of the reported exchanges, which we quoted earlier, were sufficient to permit full review of what occurred at trial.