Facts: Defendant was charged with distribution
of marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The defendant moved to suppress the
statements he made to police on August 13, 2004, following his arrest on the
drug charges, claiming that they were obtained in violation of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments and Art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights
because he had not been advised of his Miranda rights. The interrogation had been conducted in
Spanish and tape recorded, but the Commonwealth did not provide notice of
discovery of the audio recording of the interrogation until November 17, 2009,
and did not provide the defendant with a copy of the audiotape until November
30. On February 9, 2010, when the
motion to suppress was scheduled to be heard, the defendant orally moved to
exclude the recording because the Commonwealth had failed to provide an
English-language transcript. The
Commonwealth contended that its only obligation in discovery was to provide the
defendant with the Spanish-language audio recording. The District Court Department, Chelsea
Division, Diana L. Maldonado, J., granted defendant’s motion to suppress the audio
recording of Spanish- language interrogation of defendant and police officers’
testimony regarding the statements the defendant made during the
interrogation. Commonwealth filed
application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal. A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court,
Suffolk County, Ireland, J., allowed the application and reported appeal to
Appeals Court.
Issue: Did the judge abuse her discretion in
declaring that the Commonwealth may not offer in evidence because a translated
transcript was not given to the defense counsel?
Holding: No.
Vacated and Remanded. After
transferring the matter from the Appeals Court on its own initiative, the SJC
held that Commonwealth was required to provide English-language transcript of
recording of interrogation. The judge did
not abuse her discretion in declaring that the Commonwealth may not offer in
evidence, the defendant’s statements, or the audio recording of the
interrogation while refusing to provide defense counsel with a translated
transcript of the Spanish-language recording.
Ultimately, when the Commonwealth intends in its case-in-chief to offer
at trial statements made by a defendant in a foreign language in a
tape-recorded interview, it is within the judge’s discretion to require the
commonwealth to provide defense counsel in advance of trial with an
English-language transcript of the interview, and to exclude the statements
where the Commonwealth declines to do so.
(JB)
