ILNews

Supreme Court affirms admitting English transcript at trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

English language translation transcripts of statements recorded in foreign language, if otherwise admissible, may be properly considered as substantive evidence, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

In Noe Romo v. State of Indiana, No. 49S04-1009-CR-499, the justices had to decide whether a trial court committed reversible error by admitting as substantive evidence the three translation transcripts of the Spanish recordings between Noe Romo and a police informant. The recordings were made during drug transactions and Romo was later convicted of three counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine or narcotic drugs.

Romo’s attorney made several unsuccessful objections to the state’s offer of the English transcripts into evidence. The trial court ruled the Spanish recordings wouldn’t be played because the jurors would likely not understand them. Romo’s appeal only challenged the admission of the English transcripts and not the refusal of the trial court to play the audio recordings to the jury.

The Indiana Rules of Evidence don’t address this exact issue, but Evidence Rule 1002 says that to prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original is required, with a few exceptions.

Indiana caselaw hasn’t touched on this specific issue either, with previous rulings dealing with transcripts of recordings that were both in English. Those rulings viewed the function of transcripts as an aid to assist a jury’s understanding of the actual recording and that the original recording must be submitted as proof of the contents of the recording. Justice Brent Dickson noted that Small v. State, 736 N.E.2d 742 (Ind. 2000), and Roby v. State, 742 N.E.2d 505 (Ind. 2001), left open the possibly of a more robust role for transcripts where recording is inaudible or indistinct.

The justices turned to federal rulings to find that English language translation transcripts of statements recorded in a foreign language, if otherwise admissible, may properly be considered as substantive evidence, citing United States v. Estrada, 256 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 2001), and United States v. Placensia, 352 F.3d 1157, 1165 (8th Cir. 2003). They also held the admission into evidence of foreign language translation transcripts is not governed by Evidence Rule 1002.

“Although the defendant does not here focus on the trial court's refusal to play the Spanish recordings, in the exercise of our general supervisory authority, we determine that it is generally the better practice to play such foreign language recordings to the jury upon a reasonable request by a party,” Justice Dickson wrote. “Expediency undoubtedly results when a jury is spared from listening to foreign-language recordings, and practical usefulness is served by providing them instead with reliable English translations or translation transcripts. But we value even higher the capacity of jurors to apply their sensing and intuition faculties in reaching their determinations.”

The justices summarily affirmed the Indiana Court of Appeals on all other issues, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT