Opinion ID: 1160457
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defendant's Testimony: Assistance of an Interpreter

Text: Prior to trial, defendant moved the superior court to appoint an interpreter to assist him throughout the proceedings. In support, defense counsel declared, in substance, that defendant had spent most of his life in Cuba, and there spoke Spanish; he had been in the United States for only eight or nine years; he could carry on a conversation in English on a limited basis; but he appear[ed] not to understand where the conversation involves anything technical such as explaining different Court procedures; and he indicated that he does have a great deal of difficultly when the language becomes technical in nature. The superior court granted the motion. It made an interpreter from the interpreter's office for the superior and municipal courts available to assist him throughout the proceedings. An interpreter did in fact assist. In his case, defendant took the witness stand on his own behalf. At the commencement of direct examination, defense counsel asked, Now, you're going to be testifying in English today; is that correct? Defendant answered, Yes. Defense counsel: And that's at your request; is that right? Defendant: Right. Defense counsel: [W]hat's your native language? Defendant: Spanish. Defense counsel: And the interpreter is next to you here, and if you have any problems either understanding me or expressing yourself, then just feel free to ask the interpreter to help out. Will you do that? Defendant: Okay. The superior court made plain that, if anyone was unable to understand defendant, he should so indicate. Subsequently, in a recess during cross-examination by the People, defense counsel requested the superior court, outside the presence of the jury, to cause the interpreter to simultaneously translate for defendant the questions that are being asked on cross-examination, because I noted that, it appeared to me at least, that he had misunderstood a couple of the questions that were asked, and had given answers not necessarily responsive to them.... The superior court declined to order simultaneous translation, stating that it prefer[red] to continue the way we're going, that is, with sequential translation. If you feel... that he's misunderstanding the question, you may use that as an objection, in this case. Defense counsel said, Okay. Later, the superior court explained its preference by calling on the interpreter to state for the record: [W]e never do simultaneous [translation] at the witness stand, only at counsel table; [t]he main reason is, because of the confusion of hearing two languages at the same time, ... and also, you lose the continuity of the questioning.... Defense counsel commented, I think that by giving me an additional grounds [ sic ] of objection, other than those provided for in the [E]vidence [C]ode itself, to solve the problem, ... at least I can stop the proceedings and make sure that he understands what the question is. The superior court stated, I think things went well, that way, and we'll continue that way. (19) Defendant now contends that the superior court erred by denying him his right to the assistance of an interpreter in the course of his testimony. We shall assume that defendant did in fact have a right to the assistance of an interpreter. For example, article I, section 14 of the California Constitution provides that [a] person ... who is charged with a crime has a right to an interpreter  meaning an interpreter's assistance  if he is unable to understand English. For present purposes, defendant may be deemed to have been unable to understand English. We cannot conclude, however, that the superior court denied defendant any right he had to the assistance of an interpreter. It made an interpreter available to assist him throughout the proceedings. Furthermore, an interpreter did in fact assist. Taking the witness stand, he chose to testify in English. The superior court continued to make the interpreter available to assist him there  and the interpreter did in fact continue to assist. True, it impliedly prohibited simultaneous translation. But it expressly allowed sequential translation. Against our conclusion, defendant argues that the superior court denied him any right he had to the assistance of an interpreter, at least when it impliedly prohibited simultaneous translation. We disagree. The superior court did not disallow assistance. Even with the implied prohibition, it merely affected the manner in which it was provided. A trial court has the power  indeed, the duty  to conduct the proceedings in an orderly manner. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(3).) An appellate court reviews the exercise of such power for abuse of discretion. ( People v. Jackson (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 851, 855 [58 Cal. Rptr. 776]; People v. Miller (1960) 185 Cal. App.2d 59, 77 [8 Cal. Rptr. 91].) There was no such abuse here. The superior court did not act unreasonably. As indicated, simultaneous translation was explained by the interpreter to be impracticable. As also indicated, sequential translation was found satisfactory by the superior court, and was even accepted by defense counsel. We do not overlook the fact that, during his testimony, defendant experienced difficulties in understanding and in making himself understood. But neither can we overlook the fact the superior court did not refuse him any assistance. Defendant also argues that he did not effectively waive any right he had to the assistance of an interpreter. That is true. But it does not matter. The reason is simple: Defendant retained any right he had, and went on to exercise it as he saw fit, subject only to the superior court's implied prohibition of simultaneous translation. [16]