ILNews

Translated transcripts necessary for jury

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court didn’t abuse its discretion when it admitted transcripts translated into English of drug transactions recorded in Spanish because the jury wouldn’t be able to understand the recording, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

Noe Romo challenged the admission of the English transcripts of drug transactions he participated in with a confidential informant in Spanish. Romo, who was convicted of three counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, claimed the transcripts could only be admitted and given to the jury if the recordings were admitted and played for the jury. Romo’s attorney at trial argued that Grimes v. State, 633 N.E.2d. 262, 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) says transcripts can only be used to help a jury understand audio tapes, but the trial judge saw no point in playing the Spanish audio when the jury wouldn’t be able to understand it. The judge allowed the transcripts as a substitute because they will “help the trier of fact.” The jury only received the transcripts, but both the transcripts and recordings were admitted into evidence.

In Bryan v. State, 450 N.E.2d 53, 59 (Ind. 1983), the Indiana Supreme Court explicitly discussed that transcripts “may” be necessary when audio is inaudible or to identify speakers, but it also left open the door for other possible circumstances.

“Today, we find that the instant facts present yet a third scenario - one in which the audio recording is not ‘[t]he best evidence of the conversation’ because the recording features a language that is beyond the comprehension of the entire jury,” wrote Judge Carr Darden in Noe Romo v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-1003-CR-143.

Given that it was unlikely that the jury would understand enough Spanish and the idiom of the language at issue to understand the recordings, the trial court acted reasonably and within its discretion to give jurors copies of the transcript, the judge continued. There was no abuse of discretion in finding that playing the Spanish recordings as the jury read the English transcripts would not have helped the jury understand the audio and would have been a waste of judicial resources.

The appellate court affirmed that the state laid the proper foundation to establish the accuracy of the transcripts, that Romo wasn’t prejudiced by the admission of the transcripts, and that there was no error in admitting a detective’s opinion testimony. The appellate court inferred based on the detective’s position on the drug task force and his elevated rank that the detective had knowledge beyond that of the average juror regarding narcotics and was sufficiently familiar enough with the language of drug trafficking to provide testimony on the meaning of drug-dealing terms used by Romo in Spanish.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT