JORGE V. ECHEMENDIA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial due to an interpreter's misstatement.
During a trial, an interpreter misstated a witness's testimony, making it appear the defendant used a racial slur. The defense moved for a mistrial, w…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Evidence Code cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Jorge Echemendia, appeals from his conviction arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial. We agree.
The defendant was charged with burglary, shooting a deadly missile, and first degree murder. Lazario Drake, who was present at the time of the shooting, was called to testify by the State. Mr. Drake spoke only Spanish and an interpreter was used to interpret his testimony from Spanish to English. Mr. Drake gave testimony about a statement the defendant made regarding the victim that when interpreted by the interpreter seemed as if the defendant used a racial slur when referring to the victim. Because this was a misinterpretation of the witness’ statement by the interpreter, defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial arguing that a curative instruction would be inadequate. The trial court denied the motion for mis trial. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and this appeal followed.
Pursuant to section 90.606(3), Florida Statute (1997), an interpreter must “make a true interpretation of the questions asked and the answers given.... ” In the instant case, the interpretation given was not “a true interpretation of the ... answers given,” and as a result, made it seem as if the defendant used a racial slur when referring to the victim. Further, because the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming, the error cannot be deemed harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Therefore, we must reverse and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thornton v. State, 852 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ey should properly carry none. Marsh, 202 So. 2d at 224; and 3. most serious of all, the rule which forbids even a prosecutorial intimation, let alone the direct accusation that the defendant used a despicable racial slur. See Echemendia v. State, 735 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); McCallister v. State, 779 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Perez v. State, 689 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). No trial which contains a statement like this may be permitted to stand. II. As a completely separate matter, the sta…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)