State v. Rodriguez
| Decision Date | 09 May 1996 |
| Citation | 682 A.2d 764,294 N.J.Super. 129 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Complainant-Respondent, v. Rudis RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
John Hughes, for defendant-appellant.
Carmen Messano, Hudson County Prosector, Thomas J. Ryan, Assistant Prosecutor, for the State, complainant-respondent (Carmen Messano, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney).
This case explores the limits of a non-English-speaking municipal court defendant's right to an interpreter. Appellant, a Spanish-speaker, was tried and convicted in Bayonne Municipal Court of driving while under the influence of alcohol ( N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) and leaving the scene of an accident ( N.J.S.A. 39:4-129). While the trial encompassed hearings on three separate dates, appellant was not provided with a Spanish-language court interpreter for at least one of the sessions. The issue to be decided is when, and under what circumstances, does a municipal court defendant have the right to a court interpreter?
In this case, appellant, Rudis Rodriguez, was arrested in Bayonne, New Jersey, on July 17, 1993, and charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol ( N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) and leaving the scene of an accident ( N.J.S.A. 39:4-129). After a lengthy trial spanning three dates (December 15 and 23, 1993; April 20, 1994), appellant was found guilty of both charges by the Bayonne Municipal Court on April 20, 1994. He was fined a total of $494; his driver's license was suspended for six months; and he was ordered to attend two six-hour sessions at the county Intoxicated Driver Resource Center. Appellant's initial appeal to the Law Division was denied, but in a subsequent appeal the Appellate Division reversed and remanded the case back to the Law Division for a hearing de novo on the record below. See R. 3:23-8(a); see State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 157, 199 A.2d 809 (1964). Accordingly, this court conducted a hearing on March 14, 1996.
The court finds that at approximately 11:30 p.m. on July 17, 1993, a white car struck the right front area of Bayonne Police Officer Mike Michaels' green Dodge Intrepid when Officer Michaels was stopped at a traffic signal at the intersection of 19th Street and Avenue C in Bayonne. Officer Michaels, who was off-duty at the time, pursued the white car and overtook it a short time later as it was being parked. Bayonne Police Officers Keith Striffolino and Thomas Napier responded to the scene as back-up. Officer Michaels spotted appellant exiting from the driver's side of the white car after it was parked. After a brief disagreement as to whether or not appellant would surrender his car keys, he was arrested.
The court finds that Rodriguez, a native Spanish-speaker, understood very little of what the police officers said to him that night, and, in fact, understands and speaks very little English in general. Officer Striffolino admitted on cross-examination that appellant "has a serious language problem," and one week later appellant returned to the police station with an interpreter to give a statement regarding the events of the seventeenth. The record does not indicate whether Rodriguez was afforded a court interpreter for the initial hearing (December 15, 1993) before the municipal court; however, there was no court interpreter for the second hearing (December 22, 1993). Instead, Rodriguez' attorney waived his client's right to a court interpreter, and a bilingual defense witness was permitted to interpret for Rodriguez. Finally, Rodriguez was provided with a Spanish-language court interpreter for at least a portion of the third and final hearing (April 20, 1994).
A. Any consideration of the right to an interpreter must begin with an examination of the underpinnings of that right. As a baseline, both federal and New Jersey courts have grounded a criminal defendant's right to an interpreter in the confrontation and assistance of counsel clauses of the federal and state constitutions. United States ex rel. Negron v. State of New York, 434 F.2d 386 (2d Cir.1970) 1; United States v. Mosquera, 816 F.Supp. 168, 172-73 (E.D.N.Y.1993); State v. Kounelis, 258 N.J.Super. 420, 426-27, 609 A.2d 1310 (App.Div.1992), cert. denied, 133 N.J. 429, 627 A.2d 1136 (1993) citing State v. Linares, 192 N.J.Super. 391, 393-94, 470 A.2d 39 (Law Div.1983); see U.S. Const. amend. VI; see N.J. Const. art. I, p 10. The right to an interpreter was deemed crucial to a non-English-speaking defendant's ability to participate in his own defense, and all rights emanating from this, such as the right to counsel and the right to cross-examine witnesses, would be eviscerated without the defendant's complete understanding of the case against him. E.g., Mosquera, 816 F.Supp. at 174-76 2; Kounelis, 258 N.J.Super. at 426-27, 609 A.2d 1310.
New Jersey courts have not extended the right to an interpreter beyond the class of criminal defendants. See Kounelis, 258 N.J.Super. at 426-28, 609 A.2d 1310. Under New Jersey law, crimes are offenses for which a sentence of greater than six months imprisonment is authorized. N.J.S.A. 2C:1-4(a). Disorderly persons offenses, on the other hand, contemplate up to six months of jail time and "are not crimes within the meaning of ... [New Jersey's] Constitution." N.J.S.A. 2C:1-4(b). Generally, criminal cases are tried in the Law Division of the Superior Court. E.g., State v. Karaarslan, 262 N.J.Super. 123, 125, 619 A.2d 1346 (Law Div.1993). Driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) is not characterized as a crime in New Jersey but rather a "serious traffic offense." State v. Cusick, 110 N.J.Super. 149, 151, 264 A.2d 735 (App.Div.1970). Similarly, leaving the scene of an accident is a Title 39 traffic offense 3. N.J.S.A. 39:4-129; see State v. Dively, 92 N.J. 573, 585, 458 A.2d 502 (1983).
While not classified as a criminal proceeding, the State's prosecution of Rodriguez under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 and 39:4-129 falls under the nebulous "quasi-criminal" category. 4 State v. Dively, 92 N.J. at 585, 458 A.2d 502; State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. at 156, 199 A.2d 809; State v. Emery, 27 N.J. 348, 353, 142 A.2d 874 (1958); State v. DiSomma, 262 N.J.Super. 375, 380, 621 A.2d 55 (App.Div.1993). Nevertheless, both traffic offenses share some of the attributes of a criminal statute. Conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and jail time is possible, even for first-time offenders. E.g., State v. Dively, 92 N.J. at 585, 458 A.2d 502; 5 see State v. McCarthy, 30 N.J.Super. 6, 9, 103 A.2d 169 (App.Div.1954). In fact, the McCarthy court stated, more than forty years ago, that New Jersey "decisional law has insisted that proceedings in the prosecution of violators of R.S. 39:4-50 [a precursor to N.J.S.A. 39:4-50] shall be so conducted as to respect and safeguard those basic rights normally to be accorded one accused of a criminal offense." McCarthy, 30 N.J.Super. at 9, 103 A.2d 169.
Given this state's decision to treat traffic offenses much like criminal offenses and to accord to suspected traffic offenders a panoply of rights approaching those of a criminal defendant, it would not be far-fetched to extend the right to an interpreter to those non-English-speaking defendants accused of violating Title 39. It seems almost syllogistic that if the ability to understand the proceedings and case arrayed against one is essential to a non-English-speaking criminal defendant's capacity for mounting a vigorous defense, Kounelis, 258 N.J.Super. at 427, 609 A.2d 1310 (citing Negron, 434 F.2d at 388), and the prosecution of traffic offenses "is treated as quasi-criminal to satisfy the requirements of fundamental fairness and essential justice to the accused," Vickey v. Nessler, 230 N.J.Super. 141, 149, 553 A.2d 34 (App.Div.1989), cert. denied, 117 N.J. 74, 563 A.2d 836 (1989), then the right to an interpreter should be extended to non-English-speaking defendants accused of committing traffic offenses.
There is, however, an even more compelling justification for recognizing the right to an interpreter for some municipal court defendants, and it naturally leads to the formulation of an appropriately-tailored rule. Specifically, any defendant accused of committing a traffic offense who can not adequately speak and/or understand English shall be provided with a court interpreter whenever the nature of the charges against him give rise to a right to counsel.
Both the federal and state constitutions guarantee criminal defendants the right to assistance of counsel. U.S. Const. amend. VI; N.J. Const. art. I, p 10. In 1971, the Supreme Court of this state, in Rodriguez v. Rosenblatt, 58 N.J. 281, 277 A.2d 216 (1971), established the right of some defendants accused of non-indictable offenses to representation by legal counsel. Id. The Court ruled that counsel should be appointed for an indigent defendant whenever he is confronted with the threat of imprisonment or "other consequence of magnitude" upon conviction. Id. at 295, 277 A.2d 216. The Court specifically noted "the substantial loss of driving privileges" as a "serious consequence" of conviction. Id.
Thus, under Rodriguez, an indigent, non-English-speaking defendant being prosecuted in municipal court for an alleged traffic offense might be entitled to the assistance of counsel depending on the seriousness and probability of punishment upon conviction. Rodriguez, 58 N.J. at 294-95, 277 A.2d 216. However, under Kounelis, a non-English-speaking defendant being prosecuted in the Law Division for an alleged criminal offense would have his constitutional right to counsel impermissibly infringed upon if no interpreter were appointed. Kounelis, 258 N.J.Super. at 426-27, 609 A.2d 1310. Again, it seems logical that if the constitutional right to counsel of a non-English-speaking criminal defendant is violated in the absence of a court interpreter,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Guzman
... ... Rodriguez, 294 N.J.Super. 129, 133-37, ... Page 378 ... 682 A.2d 764 (Law Div.1996). Although there is no decision of the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of New Jersey dealing with this issue, other courts throughout the country have also held that a criminal defendant has a ... ...
-
In re Perrin
... ... confirmation of his Chapter 13 plan providing for the full payment of court imposed fines deprives the municipal court of its authority, under state law, to resentence him. The municipal court believes that any term of repayment other than that dictated by state statute is unacceptable and that it ... accord to suspected traffic offenders a panoply of rights approaching those of a criminal defendant." State v. Rodriguez, 294 N.J.Super. 129, 136, 682 A.2d 764 (Law Div.1996). See also State v. Garthe, 145 N.J. 1, 8, 678 A.2d 153 (1996) (DWI charge before municipal ... ...
-
State v. Garcia
...unless he finds these provisions have been met and that the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. State v. Rodriguez, 294 N.J.Super. 129, 682 A.2d 764, 771 (1996) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1871(f)(1) ). We agree and conclude that our trial courts going forward should engage in an on-the-......
-
State v. Alsanea
... ... The mere acquiescence by defense counsel was insufficient to waive the defendant's right to the assistance of his interpreter ... A similar conclusion was reached in State v. Rodriguez, 294 N.J.Super. 129, 682 A.2d 764 (1996) ... There again, the defendant understood and spoke very little English. The defendant was not afforded an interpreter at the first two of his three hearings and, in fact, his defense counsel waived the defendant's right to a court interpreter at the second ... ...