Correa v. Superior Court

Decision Date25 February 2002
Docket NumberNo. S093476.,S093476.
Citation27 Cal.4th 444,40 P.3d 739,117 Cal.Rptr.2d 27
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesAzucena CORREA, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Orange County, Respondent; The People, Real Party In Interest.

Carl C. Holmes, Public Defender, Deborah A. Kwast, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Kevin Phillips, Assistant Public Defender, and Donald E. Landis, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney, Stephan Sauer and Brian F. Fitzpatrick, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

Steve Cooley, District Attorney (Los Angeles), George M. Palmer, Head Deputy District Attorney, and Shirley S.N. Sun, Deputy District Attorney, for Appellate Committee of the California District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

GEORGE, C.J.

In the present case, investigating officers testified at defendant's preliminary hearing regarding extrajudicial statements made by the Spanish-speaking victim of the alleged crimes and by another Spanish-speaking witness. The officers did not understand Spanish, but received the statements of the victim and the witness through contemporaneous translations provided by apparently unbiased bystanders during the officers' investigation of the crimes. The persons who acted as translators during these interviews also testified at the preliminary hearing regarding their language skills and the circumstances of the translation.

Defendant acknowledges that, by virtue of provisions adopted as part of Proposition 115 more than a decade ago, qualified police officers generally are permitted to relate the statements of out-of-court declarants at a preliminary hearing. He contends, however, that because of the role played by the translators during the out-of-court interviews, the officers' testimony in the present case constituted inadmissible multiple hearsay. The officers were recounting the statements of the translators, he contends, not those of the original declarants. The Court of Appeal agreed with defendant's contention and held that the officers' testimony regarding the statements should not have been admitted into evidence. We granted review to consider the validity of the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal.

For the reasons discussed below, we disagree with the Court of Appeal's determination. As we shall explain, the weight of recent authority in this and other jurisdictions does not treat the participation of a translator in such circumstances as interposing a layer of hearsay. Rather, a generally unbiased and adequately skilled translator simply serves as a "language conduit," so that the translated statement is considered to be the statement of the original declarant, and not that of the translator. Because we find this analysis sound, we overrule early opinions of this court to the extent they characterize such translations as constituting hearsay, and we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

I

After a complaint was filed charging petitioner Azucena Correa (hereafter defendant) with various crimes, a preliminary examination commenced on February 16, 2000. Michelle Bland, a police officer employed by the Westminster Police Department, testified that she was called for assistance in a domestic disturbance on November 30, 1999. At the scene, Officer Bland spoke with Patricia Gil. Over defendant's hearsay objection, Officer Bland testified as to Patricia's statements. Defendant's hearsay objection was based on the circumstance that Patricia spoke only Spanish and that the officer received her statement only with the assistance of a neighbor, Higinia Garcia, who translated Patricia's statements into English and translated the officer's questions into Spanish.

According to Officer Bland's testimony at the preliminary hearing, Patricia stated that defendant and Miguel Gil (Patricia's brother) had been arguing, that defendant scratched Miguel's face and hit him in the mouth with a ratchet wrench, and that Patricia observed defendant run inside a house and return with a small kitchen knife. Upon further questioning by the officer, Patricia stated that she saw defendant place the knife in her back pocket, saw her approach Miguel, who was holding Patricia's son, heard defendant state "you won't dare hit me," and then saw defendant swing the knife at Miguel. Miguel was holding the child in front of him and moved away from the blow. Officer Bland also testified that Patricia said that she (Patricia) had tried to intervene, but had been pushed away by defendant. Patricia also said she later observed that Miguel had suffered a stab wound.

Higinia Garcia also testified at the preliminary hearing. Higinia stated that she was born in Mexico, came to this country at the age of 10 years, attended school here, and currently was employed by a school district in a position requiring her to speak English. Higinia spoke both Spanish and English at home. She testified at the preliminary hearing without an interpreter, but stated that she was uncertain whether she spoke English fluently. The magistrate, however, stated that Higinia appeared to be fluent in English.

Higinia testified that Patricia, a stranger to her, had approached her to ask to use her telephone. Higinia testified briefly regarding Patricia's demeanor at the time of the incident. Higinia also testified that she had understood Patricia perfectly and believed she had provided a word-for-word translation. At the time of the preliminary hearing, Higinia no longer recalled exactly what Patricia had said or exactly what questions the officer had asked. Higinia testified that she had translated faithfully.

Officer Michael Ogawa, also of the Westminster Police Department, testified at the preliminary hearing that he had interviewed Miguel, the victim of the stabbing, at the scene. Again over defense objection, Officer Ogawa was permitted to testify regarding Miguel's statements, despite the circumstance that the officer spoke only English and Miguel spoke only Spanish. Officer Ogawa testified that their communication took place through the translation provided by Hector Garcia, also a neighbor (and apparently the son of Higinia Garcia). Officer Ogawa testified that Miguel said that he (Miguel) had been in an argument with defendant near defendant's mother's home, and that defendant had retreated into a house, returned with a knife, and stabbed him. Officer Ogawa testified that he personally had observed a stab wound as well as scratches and cuts on Miguel's face and neck. Miguel and his sister, Patricia, who also spoke to Officer Ogawa through the same translator, told the officer where to find defendant. When Officer Ogawa contacted defendant, she explained to him (apparently without the assistance of a translator) that Miguel was her boyfriend and stated she was present when he was stabbed.

Hector Garcia also testified at the preliminary hearing. He stated that he was a native English speaker, but that he was also fluent in Spanish because his mother spoke that language in their home. Hector testified that he had translated accurately. He reported that he had been approached by a woman he had never met (apparently Patricia), who asked to use his telephone. He granted permission and later observed a man (apparently Miguel), also a stranger, who appeared with a bleeding wound on his left side. Then two police officers arrived, and he translated for them at their request. He did not add anything or leave anything out, although he may not have given a word-for-word translation.

It was stipulated that a blood test performed on Miguel shortly after the incident indicated that his blood-alcohol level was .24 percent. In connection with defendant's motion to reduce the assault, child endangerment, and willful corporal injury charges to misdemeanors pursuant to Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b), defense counsel asserted that Miguel previously had been convicted of domestic abuse committed upon defendant, that he had initiated the dispute that resulted in the current charges against defendant, and that at the time of the charged incident, there was an outstanding warrant for Miguel's arrest for his failure to comply with a condition of probation that he attend a "batterer's treatment program." The court denied the motion to reduce the charges to misdemeanors.

After defendant was held to answer following the preliminary hearing, an information was filed charging her with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen.Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)),1 child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (a)), and battery against a domestic companion (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)), a misdemeanor. In connection with the assault charge, the information also alleged personal use of a deadly weapon within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b).

Defendant brought a motion to set aside the information (§ 995), contending that the testimony of Officers Bland and Ogawa at the preliminary hearing, relating the translated statements of Patricia and Miguel, was inadmissible because the translation added a layer of hearsay for which there exists no hearsay exception. Without this testimony, it was alleged, there was insufficient evidence upon which to hold defendant to answer. The trial court denied the motion to set aside the information, determining that the translation did not add a layer of hearsay but that the translators simply served as a conduit conveying Patricia's and Miguel's statements to the officers.

Defendant filed a petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition and a request for a stay in the Court of Appeal, which issued a stay and an order to show cause. After briefing and oral argument, the appellate court issued an opinion determining that the testimony of the English-speaking officers, in which they recounted the translated statements of the out-of-court declarants who spoke Spanish, constituted multiple hearsay that was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
74 cases
  • People v. Gray
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 30, 2021
    ......Capriola, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief ...1318, 20 L.Ed.2d 255 ["The right to confrontation is basically a trial right"]; Correa v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 444, 464-465, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 27, 40 P.3d 739 [same]), but the ......
  • Bullock v. Superior Court of Contra Costa Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 24, 2020
    ......( People v. Casillas (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 171, 179, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 651.) The function of the preliminary examination is "to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that the defendant has committed a felony and should be held for trial." ( Correa v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 444, 452, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 27, 40 P.3d 739 ( Correa ); see also § 866, subd. (b).) Prior to passage of Proposition 115 in June 1990, California courts had an "expansive concept of the preliminary hearing as a discovery and trial preparation device, allowing ......
  • Thompson v. County of Los Angeles
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 22, 2006
    ......v. . COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents. . No. B174594. . Court" of Appeal, Second District, Division 2. . August 22, 2006. . [47 Cal.Rptr.3d 704] .       \xC2"... for negligence against the same deputies and the County under the theory of respondeat superior. The jury was asked to determine whether appellant suffered a constitutional violation and whether ...[¶] (b) Except as provided by law, hearsay evidence is inadmissible.'" ( Correa v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 444, 451, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 27, 40 P.3d 739.) One exception to ......
  • Menifee v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 13, 2020
    ...... of appeal or superior court, including proceedings in such actions conducted by a referee, court commissioner, or similar officer, but does not apply in grand jury proceedings."].) "Special rules apply to the admission of hearsay evidence at a preliminary hearing in a criminal case." ( Correa v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 444, 451, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 27, 40 P.3d 739.) Specifically, section 872, subdivision (b)—enacted in 1990 as part of Proposition 115—permits " ‘the finding of probable cause [to] be based in whole or in part upon the sworn testimony of a law enforcement ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...2d 1, §4:70 Cornwell, People v. (2005) 37 Cal. 4th 50, 33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1. §§2:190, 8:30, 21:140, 21:150 Correa v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 444, 117 Cal. Rptr. 26, 27, §§9:30, 9:90 Correll v. Clark Equipment Co. (1978) 76 Cal. App. 3d 548, 143 Cal. Rptr. 269, §1:70 Corrigan, People......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...11 Cal. 4th 475, 511, 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 751. • The use of an interpreter is not a layer of hearsay. Correa v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 444, 448, 117 Cal. Rptr. 26. If a statement is not offered for its truth, admission of the statement is not barred by the Confrontation Clause of th......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...3-B, §20.1 Corey L., In re, 203 Cal. App. 3d 1020, 250 Cal. Rptr. 359 (1st Dist. 1988)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.1(3)(m) Correa v. Superior Court, 27 Cal. 4th 444, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 27, 40 P.3d 739 (2002)—Ch. 3-B, §1.4.2; Ch. 5-E, §2 Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, 47 Cal. 4th 725, 101 Cal. R......
  • Chapter 5 - §2. Components of right of confrontation
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...(9th Cir.2010) 604 F.3d 1166, 1169 (right of confrontation does not apply to preliminary hearings); Correa v. Superior Ct. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 444, 464-65 (right of confrontation is "basically a trial right"); People v. Gray (2d Dist.2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 947, 949 (pet. granted 7-14-21; No. S2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT