State v. William
| Decision Date | 08 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | WD 78202 |
| Citation | 505 S.W.3d 344 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Harry J. WILLIAM, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Natalie Hull, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant
Dora Fichter, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent
Before Division One: Thomas H. Newton, P.J., Cynthia L. Martin, and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., JJ.
Mr. Harry J. William appeals his conviction in Clay County Circuit Court following a jury trial for first-degree statutory rape, § 566.032,1 for which he was sentenced to eighteen years in the Department of Corrections. He argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his request for an interpreter and in denying his motion to dismiss when an interpreter could not be found due to the rarity of his native language. Comparing the lack of an interpreter to other structural trial defects, such as the absence of counsel or a biased court, he claims that his constitutional rights of due process, equal protection, meaningful participation in trial, and counsel were violated. We affirm.
The State charged Mr. William with first-degree statutory rape in March 2012 for an incident that allegedly occurred in Clay County, Missouri, involving a child younger than age 14 between May and June 2010.2 Mr. William grew up on a small Micronesian island where fewer than 2,000 people, including Mr. William, speak Pingelapese, an oral language that is neither taught in schools nor used to conduct official government business.3 Mr. William filed a motion seeking an interpreter for the Pingelapese language in December 2011. The court granted the motion, and a Micronesian interpreter was appointed and served from December 2011 until April 2013. This individual was sworn in and was present during four pre-trial hearings in 2012. A nun, Sister Agnes, who speaks Pohnpeian, a Micronesian language with some Pingelapese overlaps, was sworn in to interpret for Mr. William during four hearings in early 2013. In April 2013, Mr. William filed an application for the appointment of a male defense interpreter who could speak Pingelapese. The court granted the motion.
Between March 2012, when Mr. William was arraigned, and September 2014, when his trial began, the court conducted thirty-three hearings, during just eight of which an interpreter was sworn in.4 Mr. William does not contend that his rights were violated due to the absence of an interpreter during these pre-trial hearings at which he was always represented by counsel. During only one of these hearings—the March 2012 arraignment—Mr. William stated on the record that he could not understand what the court had said. During a hearing in October 2012 at which a motion for continuance was addressed, Mr. William stated that he was able to understand what the court and counsel had been talking about. During an April 2013 hearing that similarly concerned a motion for continuance, Mr. William agreed that he was able to communicate with counsel in English and could understand what was being said during that hearing.
The State filed a motion in August 2013 for a qualified court interpreter or the waiver of a qualified interpreter. Mr. William refused to waive the appointment of a qualified interpreter for trial and expressed via counsel his dissatisfaction with Sister Agnes who spoke a dialect he claimed he did not always understand and was not trained to interpret during court proceedings. The court granted his request for a continuance and removed the case from the trial docket so efforts to locate a Pingelapese interpreter could continue.
The State filed a motion in March 2014 regarding the use of an interpreter, seeking to make a record given the parties' inability to locate a suitable interpreter and the possibility that Mr. William had a sufficient grasp of the English language that an interpreter might not be required. During a hearing on the motion, the police detective who questioned Mr. William in 2011 as part of the investigation, Mr. William's brother, who is the alleged victim's stepfather, and Mr. William's sister-in-law, the alleged victim's mother, testified for the State.
Detective Matt Brantner testified that he spoke with Mr. William for about an hour after giving him Miranda warnings. Mr. William had written the word "yes" on a document that asked if he could read and write English. While the detective acknowledged that he sometimes had difficulty understanding Mr. William due to his heavy accent and had to repeat certain words in English or find other words for Mr. William to understand what he was saying, he agreed that Mr. William did not "have any trouble understanding English or speaking English." Mr. Mike William testified that he did not grow up with his brother, who had remained on Pingelap, while he was raised on Pohnpei. Mr. Mike William indicated, however, that Pingelapese was the language spoken in the home or among friends, and that English was spoken and taught in the schools, particularly on Guam, where the Defendant had spent at least one year while growing up. He also testified that the Defendant had come to the United States in 1996, or eighteen years earlier.5 Ms. Cecelia William testified that she had met the Defendant in 2005 when both of them were working in a nursing home as certified nursing assistants.6 According to Ms. William, who does not speak Pingelapese, the Defendant spoke English with her and her children, including the victim, and at work. She agreed that Mr. William could speak English and that he could communicate with her. The State introduced the police interview video, emphasizing that it was conducted entirely in English.
Addressing the State's motion in April 2014, the court opined that Mr. William's command of the English language was likely sufficient for trial, but indicated a willingness to give him more time to locate a Pingelapese interpreter.7 Mr. William's counsel stated during this hearing that the responses given during the police interview were monosyllabic and argued that "[t]here is a difference between being able to understand a little bit of English that's going on around him and being able to articulate his own thoughts in that second language." Eight pre-trial hearings occurred after this one, and four of them were devoted to a discussion about whether an interpreter could be found for Mr. William's trial. During a May 2014 pre-trial hearing, defense counsel conceded that it would be impossible to locate a Pingelapese interpreter; he indicated to the circuit court that he had agreed with the State that the case should be set for trial and placed back on the schedule.
On the first day of trial (September 22, 2014), Mr. William made a motion to dismiss the charge "based upon the interpreter problem." He claimed that his constitutional rights of due process and equal protection, to confront witnesses and meaningfully participate, and to counsel would be violated if the charge were not dismissed. Defense counsel conceded that Mr. William could "get by" as a non-English speaker "for everyday uses," but further stated,
The trial judge, who had presided over every hearing since the charges had been filed and had had the opportunity to observe the Defendant, ruled that Mr. William's understanding of English was "sufficient for Constitutional purposes for him to be able to understand the proceedings against him and participate in his own defense such that no interpreter is necessary in order to protect his constitutional rights." Thereafter, when discussing plea offers that had been made and not accepted, defense counsel pointed out that the State had offered a non-sex misdemeanor with credit for time served, which Mr. William had not accepted. Asked by the court about the plea offers, Mr. William agreed that he had rejected them and had been given sufficient time to consider them.
During the colloquy about Mr. William's decision not to testify at trial, Mr. William indicated that he had not had enough time to think about whether he would testify, but when questioned further and informed by the court that the jury would be instructed that no adverse inference could be drawn from his silence, he indicated that he did not want to testify, stating, "Well, I think I'm going to not testify."
Mr. William filed a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's evidence and, in arguing it, renewed his objection to the lack of an interpreter. The court denied the motion. Mr. William did not present any evidence. A jury convicted Mr. William of first-degree statutory rape and recommended an eighteen-year sentence, which the court imposed after denying his motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial.
Regarding that motion, defense counsel argued again that his client's rights were violated because he was a non-English speaker.8 The court reiterated that it remained convinced that Mr. William's grasp of the English language was sufficient for the trial to proceed and that he had understood the offers but rejected them.
After sentencing, the court questioned Mr. William about the representation his attorney had provided and whether he understood his post-trial rights. Among other matters, Mr. William stated during this colloquy, "[W]hen I first got here I asked for a speedy trial, but as we stuck on that translator, [defense counsel] came back and he said, well, we cannot do that because we cannot locate a translator." When asked if he had been satisfied with the search for an interpreter, Mr. William stated, "I'm okay with it, but at the end it's not, it's not fair to me to sit in the courtroom when I don't understand what's going on." He also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Steidley
...the fire at the store. The trial court's denial of a motion for new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. William, 505 S.W.3d 344, 349 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). "The trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is clearly against the logic of the existing circumstances and......
-
William v. State
...motions for a Pingelapese interpreter and overruling his motion to dismiss when an interpreter could not be found.1 State v. William , 505 S.W.3d 344, 349 (Mo. App. 2016). Because the record did not support his claim that the circuit court ever denied his request for a Pingelapese interpret......