Can Utah trial courts instruct juries that a witness's translation is wrong? State v. Lopez-Betanco Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important distinction in State v. Lopez-Betanco, clarifying when trial courts should intervene regarding translation accuracy during criminal proceedings.

Background and Facts

Lopez-Betanco was charged with aggravated assault and domestic violence in the presence of a child following an altercation with his girlfriend. During the police investigation, an officer who spoke Spanish interviewed Lopez-Betanco and translated his statements for his English-speaking partner. The officer’s translation, captured on bodycam video, indicated that the girlfriend “was going to swing” a hammer at Lopez-Betanco. However, when Lopez-Betanco testified through a court-certified interpreter, he stated that she “threw” the hammer at him. Court interpreters later informed the trial court that there is no direct Spanish equivalent for the English verb “to swing,” creating a translation discrepancy.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that the officer’s translation was inaccurate. Lopez-Betanco argued that the court should have specifically informed jurors about the linguistic impossibility of directly translating “swing” into Spanish, thereby correcting what he characterized as the officer’s “incorrect translation.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals distinguished between court-appointed interpreters and fact witnesses who happen to translate foreign language statements. When court-appointed interpreters make errors, courts must take corrective action. However, when a fact witness offers testimony purporting to translate a statement from a foreign language, “the veracity of that witness’s testimony, including the accuracy of the witness’s purported translation, is not ordinarily a matter for a court to weigh in on.” The accuracy of such translations becomes an evidentiary matter subject to cross-examination and impeachment, not judicial correction.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes clear boundaries for challenging translation accuracy. Defense counsel cannot simply request jury instructions declaring a fact witness’s translation inaccurate. Instead, practitioners must use traditional evidentiary tools: cross-examining the translating witness about their language capabilities, calling expert witnesses to challenge translation accuracy, and arguing translation issues to the jury. The court emphasized that Rule 19(f) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits courts from commenting on evidence, making jury instruction on translation accuracy inappropriate when dealing with fact witness testimony rather than court interpreter errors.