Criminal Defense of Immigrants

(C)  State Constitutional Law.  State courts have also recognized a non-English speaking defendant has a constitutional right to an interpreter in criminal cases.[135]  Some states protect this right in state constitutional provisions.[136]  State courts have also grounded the right to an interpreter on various federal constitutional sources of the right to an interpreter, including the Fifth Amendment rights to due process[137] and to testify in one’s own defense,[138] the Sixth Amendment rights to confront witnesses,[139] to assist in one’s defense,[140] and to the effective assistance of counsel,[141] and the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to be present at one’s trial.[142]

[135] State v. Natividad, 526 P.2d 730, 733 (Ariz. 1974) (en banc); People v. Minh Luu, 813 P.2d 826, 828 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991); People v. Avila, 797 P.2d 804, 805-06 (Colo. Ct. App, 1990); State v. Roman, 616 A.2d 266, 270 (Conn. 1992); Chao v. State, 604 A.2d 1351, 1362 (Del. 1992); Kim Long Ko v. United States, 722 A.2d 830, 834 (D.C. 1998) (en banc) (per curiam), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 1512 (1999); State v. Faafiti, 513 P.2d 697, 699 (Haw. 1973) (dictum); State v. Hemandez, 820 P.2d 380, 383 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991); People v. Escalante, 627 N.E.2d 1222, 1227-28 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994); Martinez Chavez v. State, 534 N.E.2d 731, 736 (Ind. 1989); State v. Gonzalez-Gongora, 673 S.W.2d 811, 818 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984); The Thanh Ton v. State, 878 P.2d 986, 987 (Nev. 1994) (per curiam); State v. Guzman, 712 A.2d 1233, 1241 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998); State v. Kounelis, 609 A.2d 1310, 1313 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992); In re Murga, 631 P.2d 735, 736-37 (OkIa. 1981); Commonwealth v. Pana, 364 A.2d 895, 898 (Pa. 1976); Baltierra v. State, 586 S.W.2d 553, 559 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (en banc); State v. Baysy Sengxay, 906 P.2d 368, 371 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995); State v. Woo Won Choi, 781 P.2d 505, 508 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989); see also People v. James, 937 P.2d 781, 783 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996) (recognizing constitutional right to interpreter for hearing-impaired defendant); State v. Barber, 617 So. 2d 974, 976 (La. Ct. App. 1993) (same); Commonwealth v. Wallace, 641 A.2d 321, 324-26 (Pa. Super. 1994) (same). But see State v. Neave, 344 N.W.2d 181, 184 (Wis. 1984) (holding that the right to an interpreter is neither constitutional nor statutory).

[136] See Cal. Const. Art. I, § 14; N.M. Const Art. II, § 14; see also, e.g., People v. Mata Aguilar, 677 P.2d 1198, 1201-03 (Cal. 1984) (construing constitutional provision); People v. Neiblas, 207 Cal. Rptr. 695, 696 (1984) (same).

[137] See State v. Hansen, 705 P.2d 466, 472 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985); Avila, 797 P.2d at 805; Roman, 616 A.2d at 270; Faafiti, 513 P.2d at 699; Hernandez, 820 P.2d at 383; Martinez Chavez, 534 N.E.2d at 737; Mariscal v. State, 687 N.E.2d 378, 382 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997); Gonzalez-Gongora, 673 S.W.2d at 818; The Thanh Ton, 878 P.2d at 987; Sengxay, 906 P.2d at 371.

[138] See e.g., Pana, 364 A.2d at 898.

[139] See e.g., In re Dung T., 206 Cal. Rptr. 772, 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984); State v. Munoz, 659 A.2d 683, 696 (Conn. 1995); Chao, 604 A.2d at 1362; Escalante, 627 N.E.2d at 1227; Martinez Chavez, 534 N.E.2d at 737; Gonzalez-Gongora, 673 S.W.2d at 818; State v. Rodriguez, 682 A.2d 764, 766 (N.J. Super. Law Div. 1996); Murga, 631 P.2d at 736; Pana, 364 A.2d at 898; Baltierra, 586 S.W.2d at 556; Aleman v. State, 957 S.W.2d 592, 594 (Tex. App. 1997); Abdallah v. State, 924 S.W.2d 751, 753-54 (Tex. App. 1996); Sengxay, 906 P.2d at 371; Woo Won Choi, 781 P.2d at 508; see also James, 937 P.2d at 783 (holding absence of interpreter for hearing-impaired witness implicates the right to cross-examine witnesses).

[140] See State v. Barber, 617 So. 2d 974, 976 (La. Ct. App. 1993); State v. Kounelis, 609 A.2d 1310, 1313 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1992).

[141] See e.g., Munoz, 659 A.2d at 696; Chao, 604 A.2d at 1362; Martinez Chavez, 534 N.E.2d at 737; Gonzalez-Gongora, 673 S.W.2d at 818; Kounelis, 609 A.2d at 1313; Rodriguez, 682 A.2d at 766; Murga, 631 P.2d at 736; Pana, 364 A.2d at 898; see also Liu v. State, 628 A.2d 1376, 1385 (Del.. 1993) (applying due process standard to question of interpreter for witness rather than defendant).

[142] See e.g., State v. Natividad, 526 P.2d 730, 733 (Ariz. 1974) (en banc); People v. Minh Luu, 813 P.2d 826, 827-28 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991); Munoz, 659 A.2d at 696; Martinez Chavez, 534 N.E.2d at 737; Gonzalez-Gongora, 673 S.W.2d at 818; Kounelis, 609 A.2d at 1313; Murga, 631 P.2d at 736; Pana, 364 A.2d at 898; Woo Won Choi, 781 P.2d at 508; see also James, 937 P.2d at 783 (holding absence of interpreter for hearing-impaired witness implicates the right to be present at trial); cf United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526 (1985) (explaining the distinction between the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to be present at trial); Escalante, 627 N.E.2d at 1227 (holding that a generally fair trial is not fatal to a claim of constitutional error because the right to be present to confront witnesses using an interpreter springs from the Sixth Amendment rather than the Fifth Amendment).