State v. Lopez-Ramos
| Decision Date | 16 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | A17-0609 |
| Citation | 913 N.W.2d 695 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Cesar Rosario LOPEZ-RAMOS, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Kathleen A. Kusz, Nobles County Attorney, Travis J. Smith, Special Assistant County Attorney, Slayton, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Lydia Maria Villalva Lijó, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Reyes, Judge.
In this direct appeal from final judgment of conviction and sentence for first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC), appellant Cesar Rosario Lopez-Ramos argues that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated when an interpreter who translated his foreign-language statements during a police interrogation was not present to testify at trial and the translated statements were admitted into evidence through a video recording and an officer's testimony. Lopez-Ramos also challenges the admission of his translated statements on hearsay grounds. Because the district court did not err in its determination that the interpreter in this case acted as a "language conduit" and was not a declarant, and therefore no Confrontation Clause or hearsay issues exist, we affirm.
In May 2016, the state charged Lopez-Ramos with one count of first-degree CSC alleging that he engaged in sexual penetration with a minor under 13 years of age in April 2016. Lopez-Ramos is from Guatemala and he immigrated to the United States in 2016. His first language is Mam, Spanish is his second language, and he does not speak English fluently.
In April 2016, Nobles County child protection received a report expressing concern about a 12-year-old child due to "hickeys" on her neck. Child protection contacted police and Worthington Police Officer Daniel Brouillet began investigating. Brouillet spoke to the child's parents, who said that they suspected Lopez-Ramos.
On May 10, Officer Brouillet located Lopez-Ramos, who agreed to give a statement to police. Police brought Lopez-Ramos to an interview room, and they recorded the entire interrogation on video. At the beginning of the interrogation, Brouillet telephoned a foreign-language interpretation service for a Spanish interpreter. The interpreter was placed on speaker phone, and he translated the officer's questions from English to Spanish and then translated Lopez-Ramos's statements back to the officer from Spanish to English.
During the interrogation Lopez-Ramos admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the child in this case:
Lopez-Ramos was arrested and charged. He pleaded not guilty and took his case to a jury trial. Before trial, Lopez-Ramos objected to the recording of his translated statement to police being played to the jury on Confrontation Clause and hearsay grounds because the interpreter was not present to testify. The prosecutor stated that the interpreter was probably at a call center and not in Nobles County.
The district court ruled that Officer Brouillet's testimony regarding the translated statements and the video recording of Lopez-Ramos's interrogation were both admissible and did not present Confrontation Clause or hearsay issues. Relying on a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, United States v. Nazemian , 948 F.2d 522, 527 (9th Cir. 1991), the district court examined a set of factors to determine whether the interpreter's statements "fairly should be considered the statement of the speaker." The district court concluded that the interpreter was a "language conduit" or an agent of Lopez-Ramos, and it treated the translated statements in English as Lopez-Ramos's own statements.
The video recording of Lopez-Ramos's interrogation was played for the jury and Officer Brouillet testified at trial that Lopez-Ramos told him that he (Lopez-Ramos) had "intercourse" with the child.
The child testified at trial that Lopez-Ramos pulled down her pants and underwear and placed his penis inside of her vagina. She stated that she felt pain when his penis was inside her vagina. On several occasions when asked difficult questions about what had occurred, the child had no response and the prosecutor reframed or repeated the question.
Lopez-Ramos testified and denied having any sexual contact with the child. He stated that he did not understand "why [Officer Brouillet] was asking questions" about the child. Lopez-Ramos said that he did not remember talking to Brouillet about an "incident" with the child or telling Brouillet that he had intercourse with the child because during the interrogation he was still intoxicated from a party the night before. He claimed that when he spoke to Brouillet he was "not within [his] five senses" and was "being asked question[s] that [he] was not understanding." Lopez-Ramos also claimed that he did not fully understand the interpreter because his native language is Mam. He testified, "In that video I had said that I had done things that I hadn't done."
On cross-examination, Lopez-Ramos admitted that he understood Brouillet's questions translated into Spanish regarding his date of birth, where he had lived, and his family and work history. When pressed on why he could successfully communicate on some topics but not on the topic of sexual contact with the child, Lopez-Ramos stated:
In its closing argument, the state stressed that Lopez-Ramos's own words in his statement to police were the strongest evidence that sexual penetration occurred. On December 15, 2016, the jury found Lopez-Ramos guilty of first-degree CSC.
The district court sentenced Lopez-Ramos to 144 months in prison.
Lopez-Ramos now appeals.
I. Was Lopez-Ramos's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him violated when the district court admitted into evidence his translated statements in a video recording of his interrogation and by way of Officer Brouillet's testimony, and when the interpreter was not available for cross-examination?
II. Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence Lopez-Ramos's translated statements over his hearsay objection?
Lopez-Ramos argues that the district court deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him when it allowed his translated statements into evidence through a video recording and Officer Brouillet's testimony and the interpreter was not available for cross-examination. He also argues the interpreter's statements constitute inadmissible hearsay.
Generally, appellate courts review a district court's evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. Miles v. State , 840 N.W.2d 195, 204 (Minn. 2013). But, whether admission of evidence violates a criminal defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause is a question of law that appellate courts review de novo. Hawes v. State , 826 N.W.2d 775, 786 (Minn. 2013). A district court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error. State v. Horst , 880 N.W.2d 24, 33 (Minn. 2016).
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions "the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend. VI. The Sixth Amendment is applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Pointer v. Texas , 380 U.S. 400, 403, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1068, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). The Confrontation Clause bars the admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless (1) the declarant is unavailable and (2) the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Andersen v. State , 830 N.W.2d 1, 9 (Minn. 2013) (citing Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1374, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ).
In Crawford , the Supreme Court determined that the principal evil at which the Confrontation Clause was directed was the use of "ex parte examinations as evidence against the accused." 541 U.S. at 50, 124 S.Ct. at 1363. The Clause applies to those witnesses, in or out of court, who "bear testimony" against the accused. Id . at 51, 124 S.Ct. at 1364. "Testimony" means a "solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact." Id . Without fully defining the word "testimonial," the Crawford court noted that included within a "core class" of "testimonial" statements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lopez-Ramos
...admission of the interpreter’s translated statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause or hearsay rules. State v. Lopez-Ramos , 913 N.W.2d 695, 699 (Minn. App. 2018). The court of appeals held that "when the state seeks to admit into evidence a criminal defendant’s admissions made th......
-
State v. Lemieux
...the Confrontation Clause are subject to de novo review, and factual findings are reviewed for clear error. State v. Lopez-Ramos, 913 N.W.2d 695, 701 (Minn. App. 2018). "When the error implicates a constitutional right, a new trial is required unless the State can show beyond a reasonable do......
-
State v. Kalif
...but Kalif bore the burden of authenticating the document as the proponent of the purported birth certificate. See State v. Lopez-Ramos, 913 N.W.2d 695, 708 (Minn. App. 2018), aff'd, 929 N.W.2d 414 (Minn. 2019). The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to treat the docume......