Court Opinion

ID: 9721740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:07:20.594459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:28.340721
License: Public Domain

COLOGNE, Acting P. J.
I must respectfully dissent.
Code of Civil Procedure section 185 states, “Every written proceeding in a court of justice in this state shall be in the English language, and judicial proceedings shall be conducted, preserved, and published in no other.” The wisdom of that section must be acknowledged when the court reporters try to transcribe foreign words they have never heard, much less understand, and when this reviewing court attempts to make sense out of a record of phonetically spelled meaningless (to us) foreign words. The trial court here did no more than seek compliance with this mandate. No constitutional right was abridged.
*551The defendant was not confused or prejudiced by the court’s conduct. We need only look at the record to see the truth there was no denial of confrontation.
Earlier in the Evidence Code section 405 proceedings, the prosecutor asked Officer Joe Castello if he advised Gutierrez of his constitutional rights in English or Spanish and Castello replied it was done in Spanish. On cross-examination, Castello was asked what he said. The witness inquired whether the attorney wanted it repeated in Spanish and the attorney said yes. At this point, the court interrupted and the following discussion was had:
“The Court: I don’t think that is appropriate.
“Mr. Leibowitz: We have an interpreter, your Honor, a certified one. I would like to know how he phrased it.
“The Court: All right.
“The Reporter: Wait a minute. How do you want me to take this down?
“The Court: This was the reason for my demuring [sic] to your suggestion because there is no way that the court reporter can take this down.
“Mr. Leibowitz: She can take down what Mrs. Becerra says.
“The Court: I think my first ruling should stand.
“Mr. Leibowitz: I mean Mrs. Becerra can repeat in English what he is saying in Spanish and that can be taken down.
“The Court: What he is saying can’t be taken down.
“Mr. Leibowitz: If there is any error in it, your Honor, it is very critical. The whole thing is critical to what is being said. That is the problem with this.
“The Court: The only way I would agree to permit that is that if you will stipulate that what he says in Spanish is not—need not be reported. How can you ever check that? How could you ever check Mrs. Becerra’s translation?
“Mr. Leibowitz: That may be a problem, your Honor, but I recognize the problem. I recognize it can’t be taken down in Spanish unless he can write it out in Spanish. If he can write it out—if I am not mistaken if I may ask him the question, I think maybe we can clear it up.
*552“The Court: What is tatt [sic]?
“By Mr. Leibowitz:
“Q. Mr. Gastello, do you write Spanish?
“A. I read, speak and write fluently.
“Mr. Leibowitz: Your Honor, if he would please then write in Spanish then we will have a record.” This was done and cross-examination was completed with the record totally in English.
It is significant to note Gutierrez was able to raise the issue suggested by the officer’s “improper” Miranda warning given in Spanish. The word the officer used in the warning given in Spanish means “furnish” in English but carried a different meaning than was intended. The Spanish word Castello used when advising Gutierrez an attorney would be “furnished” meant “furnish” in the sense to “fill a room with furniture” rather than “provide.” The record which the court provided permits us to understand the problem. The majority was able to resolve that issue and did not even address it because at the hearing Gutierrez, who was bilingual, admitted he understood his rights in that regard and was not misled by the officer’s use of the wrong word.
The court’s handling of this problem serves as an introduction to the later problem relative to the possible dual meaning of the Spanish word for “force,” which, as the majority holds, provides the alleged denial of confrontation. The record, as quoted by the majority, makes that point clear when the court said: “We went through this to a certain extent yesterday. Now there is no way our court reporter is going to be able to put down something that the witness says in Spanish.” During the discussion which followed, the court said, “Ask anything you like but don’t ask him to repeat things in Spanish.” How can that be deemed a denial of cross-examination?
As was done earlier, counsel could have asked the witness to write down what Gutierrez said, cross-examine him on the meaning of the specific word or idiom by reference to the writing, then if he felt the translation was inaccurate, bring in an interpreter to counter the witness’ understanding of the meaning. This approach, while not the exclusive method of handling the problem,1 was suggested earlier by Gutierrez’ counsel and actually used, so counsel cannot say he was unaware of an acceptable way to handle cross-examination and reach the problem.
*553The argument is, in any event, just a little ridiculous since no effort was made by Gutierrez, either in his own testimony or that of an interpreter, to show there is in fact a second meaning for the word; i.e., not the use of strength or violence to achieve a result against another’s will or resistance.2 His own testimony was he never told the officer he used “force” against Lisa. The issue was clearly not one of different interpretations of the word Gutierrez used but, rather, whether he said it at all. The argument there are two meanings is clearly a smoke screen.
Although much has been written on the necessity of providing qualified interpreters, especially in criminal cases, the authorities provide little assistance on how counsel should examine a witness where a foreign language is a factor.3 Spanish language has some similarities with English and uses substantially the same alphabet. I submit, however, a reporter with limited knowledge of the language who attempts to take down words phonetically will have difficulty accurately reporting words containing double “L,” a silent “H,” the “J” or “G” with an “H” sound, or the “N” with a tilde. The confusion is further complicated when idioms are used to alter literal meanings. (See Rainof, How Best to Use an Interpreter in Court (1980) 55 State Bar J. 196.)
The reporter should not be called upon to include words spoken in a foreign language. Consider the problems which would follow when an oriental language is the subject of testimony and there is no similar alphabet.
If the Supreme Court feels the keeping of a record in English denies a person the right of confrontation, I respectfully suggest the superior court be given broader instruction on how best to provide a proper record in these cases.
I would affirm.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 27, 1983.

Examining the witness in Spanish through an interpreter might also have been found acceptable and the court made no effort to rule that out. Here, however, because the witness could write the language, the method used was obviously the most expeditious.

Gutierrez’ brief does not suggest what the Spanish word was and my examination of the Spanish Dictionary prepared for Enciclopedia Barsa, Prentice Hall, Inc., and discussions with Spanish scholars do not reveal what might have been said to create any ambiguity with regard to the fact force was used.

See (1975) 8 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 471; (1975) 63 Cal.L.Rev. 801; (1974) 5 Pacific L.J. 678. Attention is also called to section 750 et seq. of the Evidence Code dealing with interpreters and translators.