Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed Noe Romo's convictions for three counts of dealing in cocaine. The court held that English-language translation transcripts of foreign-language recordings may be admitted as substantive evidence when otherwise admissible, and that foreign-language recordings generally should be played for the jury upon a reasonable request. Under the circumstances, however, the trial court's refusal to play the Spanish recordings was not an abuse of discretion because the defendant did not provide reasons supporting their relevance and had stated he saw no point in playing them.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether English-language translation transcripts of Spanish-language recordings may be admitted as substantive evidence when the recordings are not played for the jury.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to play the Spanish-language recordings for the jury.
- Whether the defendant's other claims concerning translation accuracy and the foundation for detective opinion testimony warranted reversal.
Holdings
- English-language translation transcripts of statements recorded in a foreign language, if otherwise admissible, may properly be considered as substantive evidence and are not governed by Indiana Evidence Rule 1002 in the same manner as ordinary transcripts of recordings.
- Upon a party's reasonable request, a trial court generally should play an otherwise admissible foreign-language recording for the jury; refusal is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to play the Spanish recordings because Romo did not support the request with reasons showing that playing them would provide discernable relevant evidence and told the court that he saw no point in playing them.
- The Indiana Supreme Court summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision on the remaining issues.
Key quotations
“We hold that English language translation transcripts of statements recorded in a foreign language, if otherwise admissible, may properly be considered as substantive evidence.” (at 508)
“Upon request of a party, a trial court should play for the jury such recording, if otherwise admissible. A refusal to do so will be reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion, including a consideration of the nature of the request and the proffered reasons for playing the recording.” (at 509)
Factual background
A confidential informant assisted the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department in three covert narcotics transactions with Romo on May 10, May 16, and August 6, 2007. The transactions, involving approximately four ounces of cocaine sold for $4,000, were clandestinely recorded in Spanish. Bilingual personnel repeatedly reviewed and compared English translation transcripts with the original recordings, and the State provided both the recordings and transcripts to the defense before trial.
Procedural history
Romo was convicted by a jury on three class A felony dealing-in-cocaine counts, and the trial court entered judgment and sentenced him accordingly. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, addressed the transcript-admissibility issue, summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals on the remaining issues, and affirmed the trial court's judgment.