ALEJANDORO GOPAR-SANTANA, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Gopar-Santana was convicted of cocaine trafficking and possession based on undercover drug purchases conducted in Spanish. The appellate court affirmed the convictions despite finding that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the undercover detective to interpret Spanish-language audiotapes for the jury without being sworn or impartial, concluding the error was harmless.
The trial court abused its discretion in allowing Detective Torres to interpret the tapes because he was neither sworn as an interpreter nor impartial, as he was the main participant in the sting operation. However, the error was harmless because sufficient admissible evidence supported the convictions.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by allowing a law enforcement officer who participated in a sting operation to interpret audiotapes of conversations for the jury.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion if an interpreter is not qualified, sworn, and impartial.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a trial court abuses its discretion if the interpreter is not qualified, sworn, and impartial”
Establishes the legal standard for proper interpreter use under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDetective Torres conducted a series of drug purchases from Gopar-Santana in Spanish, with conversations audiotaped and the final transaction videotape…
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 Harmless Error Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Alejandoro Gopar-Santana seeks review of his judgment and sentence for two counts of trafficking in and one count of possession of cocaine. Gopar-Santana argues that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing a detective who conducted the sting operation that led to his arrest to interpret the audiotapes of the Spanish conversations for the jury. We agree that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the interpretation but conclude that the error was harmless.
The charges in this case arose after Detective Torres initiated a series of drug purchases from Gopar-Santana in Spanish. Detective Torres’ conversations with Go-par-Santana were audiotaped, and the final transaction was videotaped. When these tapes were played for the jury, Detective Torres was permitted to interpret them in English over the objection of Go-par-Santana, who himself had an inter preter present at trial. Detective Torres did not provide a literal interpretation of the tapes for the jury but instead filled in the gaps where the tapes were inaudible with his own description of what would have been happening.
A trial court’s decision to allow for the use of an interpreter is generally a discretionary matter; however, a trial court abuses its discretion if the interpreter is not qualified, sworn, and impartial. Ortega v. State, 721 So. 2d 350, 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); see also § 90.606(1)(a), (2), Fla. Stat. (2001) (requiring an interpreter to be “duly qualified” and sworn and providing that the interpreter will be subject to the rules of evidence relating to witnesses). Not only was Detective Torres not sworn as an interpreter,1 he was not impartial because he was the main participant in the sting operation that resulted in Gopar-Santana’s arrest. The danger of proceeding without a sworn and impartial interpreter is illustrated by the fact that Detective Torres paraphrased parts of the interpretation by offering testimony of his recollection of events instead of a true interpretation. While we agree with Gopar-Santana that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the interpretation, we conclude that the error was harmless in light of the other admissible evidence to support the convictions.
Affirmed.
FULMER and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur. . Section 90.606(3), Florida Statutes (2001), requires that the interpreter take an oath that he or she will make a "true interpretation” of the testimony.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fernandez v. State, 21 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…t the trial, Dau translated the tapes in court after they were played in Spanish. The use of an interpreter at trial is a matter within the trial court’s discretion. Watson v. State, 190 So. 2d 161, 167 (Fla. 1966); see also Gopar-Santana v. State, 862 So. 2d 54, 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Gil v. State, 266 So. 2d 43, 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). An interpreter is required, however, when audio recordings in Spanish are admitted into evidence. See Hernandez v. State, 723 So. 2d 857, 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (stating th…
-
Obando v. State, 988 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…English of any writing which he or she is required by his or her duties to decipher or translate. § 90.606(l)(a), (3); see Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 2.9. In short, an interpreter must be qualified, sworn, and impartial. Gopar-Santana v. State, 862 So. 2d 54, 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citations omitted). The defendant makes a two-point argument. The first point attacks the credentials of the interpreter(s). As the State correctly responds, the trial court bears the responsibility of providing only qualifi…
-
Mendez-Martinez v. State, 232 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…ed for abuse of discretion. Fernandez v. State, 21 So. 3d 155, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). That discretion, however, is limited by the rules of evidence, and is abused “if the interpreter is not qualified, sworn, and impartial.” Gopar-Santana v. State, 862 So. 2d 54, 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Further, when the State seeks to admit into evidence a recording in Spanish, generally “a sworn interpreter must be provided to translate such conversations as may be necessary to preclude the potential of prejudice.” Hernand…
Authorities Cited
- Ortega v. State, 721 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)