Ouanbengboune v. State, 125 Nev. 763

Summary

The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed Vannasone Ouanbengboune's convictions for first-degree murder and robbery, both with deadly-weapon enhancements. The court adopted procedures for reviewing post-judgment claims of inaccuracies by court-appointed interpreters and held that, although some translation errors fundamentally altered the context of the defendant's testimony, they did not prejudice him because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The court also held that the failure to instruct the jury on afterthought robbery was erroneous but did not constitute plain error.

Holdings

1. A defendant who discovers inaccuracies in a court-appointed interpreter's translation of trial testimony after judgment may seek a new trial under NRS 176.515 if timely, or may move to modify or correct the appellate record under NRAP 10(c) when an appeal is pending. The court adopted procedures requiring review by the parties' interpreters, proof by the challenging party that the translation is inaccurate and fundamentally alters the testimony, use of an independent certified interpreter when necessary, and preservation of the competing translations.
2. Although some interpretation errors fundamentally altered the context of Ouanbengboune's testimony concerning the firing of the gun, the errors did not prejudice him sufficiently to warrant a new trial because overwhelming evidence established premeditation and the trial result would have been the same with an accurate translation.
3. The district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on afterthought robbery, but the error was not plain error because it did not adversely affect Ouanbengboune's substantial rights. The evidence overwhelmingly established willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder under an alternative theory, so a rational jury would have convicted him of first-degree murder even with a proper afterthought-robbery instruction.

Questions Presented

1. What procedures govern a post-judgment challenge to inaccuracies in a court-appointed interpreter's translation of trial testimony?
2. Did the interpreter's inaccuracies fundamentally alter Ouanbengboune's testimony and prejudice him so as to warrant a new trial?
3. Did the district court abuse its discretion by instructing the jury on felony murder?
4. Did the district court's failure to instruct the jury on afterthought robbery constitute reversible plain error?

Disposition

affirmed