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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT