Commonwealth v. Lujan

• Citation: 99 N.E.3d 806,93 Mass.App.Ct. 95
• Decision Date: 03 April 2018
• Docket Number: No. 16–P–1428,16–P–1428
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Mihail LUJAN.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

93 Mass.App.Ct. 95

99 N.E.3d 806

COMMONWEALTH

v.Mihail LUJAN.

No. 16–P–1428

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Hampden..

Argued September 14, 2017

Decided April 3, 2018

David L. Sheppard–Brick, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Patrick Levin, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant.

Present: Wolohojian, Agnes, & Wendlandt, JJ.

WOLOHOJIAN, J.

We are called upon in this interlocutory appeal to decide whether a Superior Court judge erred in allowing the defendant's motion to suppress statements he made during a police interview. The defendant's native and primary language is Moldovan but he also has some knowledge of Russian, a language unrelated to Moldovan. To bridge the language barrier between the officers (who spoke English) and the defendant (who did not) the officers enlisted the help of a Russian-speaking student intern (intern). The intern had no knowledge of Moldovan, and was not a certified interpreter in Russian. After reviewing a videotape of the interview and conducting an evidentiary hearing that included testimony from a court-certified Russian interpreter, the judge found numerous irregularities in the way the intern carried out his interpretative role. These included instances where the intern omitted or changed words, phrases, and even questions and answers; instances where the intern suggested words to the defendant that the defendant adopted to his detriment; instances where the intern asked his own questions; and instances where the intern resorted to pantomime and gestures in an attempt to explain Russian words to the defendant and to help understand what the defendant was trying to say. The judge concluded that the defendant was not effectively advised of his Miranda rights and that the defendant's statement was not voluntary because much of the statement was not his.

In this interlocutory appeal, the Commonwealth argues that (1) the defendant was not in custody, (2) as a result, Miranda warnings were not required, (3) in any event, the defendant's waiver of those rights was voluntary, and (4) the defendant's statement was voluntary. Like the judge, we conclude that the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of establishing voluntariness, and we affirm the order. Deciding as we do, we do not reach the Commonwealth's other arguments.

Background.¹ The defendant's motion to suppress was accompanied by an affidavit from counsel, who averred that he had communicated in person with his client using Russian interpreters. Each of the two interpreters had told him that the defendant was not fluent in Russian and had trouble expressing his thoughts in Russian. Counsel further averred that one of the interpreters had listened to the police interview of the defendant and was of the view that the intern's translation from English to Russian (and vice versa) was faulty. Counsel suggested that a Moldovan interpreter was necessary for a proper waiver of the defendant's Miranda rights and in order to communicate meaningfully with the defendant.

Over the course of two days, the judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress. Three witnesses testified: West Springfield police Detective Matthew Mattina, the intern, and Roman Jakub, a court-certified interpreter for Russian and Ukrainian. In addition to having the benefit of the testimony of these witnesses, the judge had the videotape of the interview, as well as a transcription of the interview containing a certified translation of the interview (certified translation). The judge made her detailed findings based on her assessment of the witnesses' testimony, the videotaped interview, and the certified translation. We note that, although the Commonwealth challenges the judge's ultimate conclusions, it does not contend that any of the judge's subsidiary findings are clearly erroneous. With that background in mind, we turn to the judge's findings, which are wholly confirmed by our independent review of the videotaped interview and the certified translation, as well as by the transcript of the evidentiary hearing.

The defendant is from Moldova, and his native language is Moldovan, a Romance language. He came to the United States three years before the events at issue in this case and has acquired an extremely limited understanding of English. He cannot effectively express himself in English, nor is there any indication that he can read or write English.

Moldova was part of the Soviet Union until 1991 and Russian (a Slavic language unrelated to Moldovan) was the official language during that time. After Moldova declared independence from the Soviet Union, Romanian became its official language.

The defendant (who was born in 1985) was a young child when the Soviet Union dissolved. However, he acquired some knowledge of Russian as a secondary language in the sense that he can understand and speak it to a degree.² There is nothing to show that the defendant can read or write Russian.

On the date at issue in this case, March 27, 2013, the defendant worked as a housekeeper in a nursing home in West Springfield. Police responded to a report that he may have touched a patient inappropriately.³ Detective Mattina spoke to the defendant and immediately could tell that English was not his native language. The detective told the defendant that he wanted to speak with him at the police station. The defendant agreed and drove to the West Springfield station in his own automobile.

There is a large Russian-speaking population in West Springfield, and the police department routinely asks civilians to serve as interpreters. On that day, police enlisted the help of the intern, a twenty-five year old college student who was interning with the police department. The intern, whose first language was Russian, was a native of Kazakhstan and had moved to the United States when he was eleven years old. He began interpreting for the police at some point in 2007, while he was still in high school, after his wrestling coach, a West Springfield police officer, asked him to.

Detective Mattina and another detective interviewed the defendant for two hours at the police station with the intern acting as interpreter. The defendant was not handcuffed and the interview was conducted in conversational tones. The interview began with some basic preliminary questions, such as the defendant's name, date of birth, and type of work, which the defendant was able to answer in English. During the remainder of the interview the defendant did not speak English (with the exception of an occasional isolated word). The detectives spoke English, and the intern spoke English and Russian.

The detectives did not tell the defendant why he was at the station for questioning. But Detective Mattina did say that "we need to give you your rights" and then read the Miranda warnings in English from a printed card. The judge found:

"There were two sets of warnings available, one typed in English and one typed copy in Russian. [The intern] showed the defendant the warnings and asked him to sign the forms. [The intern] did not read the warnings to the defendant, yet the defendant claimed he understood the writings and signed both documents. In reviewing the recording, however, I find it clear that not only did [the intern] fail to actually read the documents to the defendant in Russian, there is no indication from the recording that the defendant actually read the warnings from the Russian document. Further, [the intern] merely interpreted the warnings the police provided, and Jakub credibly testified that the warnings were not read, word for word, in Russian to the defendant."

No one asked the defendant what his primary language was, nor was any effort made to determine if he could read Russian.

The judge found (and our review of the videotaped interview and the certified translation leads us to agree) that the interview was "truncated" in the sense that the various participants were often talking over each other, at cross purposes, or without understanding what the other was saying. The interview can fairly be characterized as consisting largely of confusion, with each participant often unable to understand what the others were saying. Much of this appears to be language driven because the defendant and the intern do not appear to have shared a mutual facility in a common language. But, in addition, there were numerous instances where the intern (1) mistranslated what the detectives asked or said, (2) asked an entirely different question from that posed by the detectives, (3) asked his own questions, (3) mistranslated the defendant's answers, (4) did not translate the defendant's answer at all, (5) added something the defendant did not say, (6) suggested words or answers to the defendant when the defendant apparently could not understand or find the words to express himself, and (7) himself answered the detectives' questions (without any statement having been made by the defendant).⁴ These irregularities were not only limited to ancillary matters, but also occurred during questioning about the central issue under investigation: whether the defendant had inappropriately touched the patient. In addition, there were moments of complete failure in communication, with the intern having to resort to gestures and pantomime in order to attempt to bridge the language barrier. The judge found that "[t]he most appalling aspect of the translated transcript is the number of instances where [the intern] led the defendant into making incriminatory statements."⁵ She also found that "[t]he recorded interview and transcript are replete with instances where [the intern] created statements attributed to the defendant" and, thus, that "much of the statement was not his."

Discussion. In reviewing the judge's allowance of the defendant's motion to suppress, we "accept[ ] the judge's subsidiary findings of fact absent clear error, give[ ] substantial deference to the judge's ultimate findings and conclusions of law, but...