JAVIER ROQUE HENAO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Henao appeals his conviction for cocaine trafficking, challenging the admission of testimony regarding statements he made in Spanish through an interpreter. The court affirms, holding that interpreter-mediated statements are admissible and that any hearsay concern goes to weight rather than competency of evidence.
The court held that interpreter-mediated statements are admissible hearsay evidence; the interpretation is adopted by both parties and affects the weight but not the competency of the evidence. Additionally, the court found sufficient evidence of cocaine possession to support the conviction. The officer's testimony was also harmless as cumulative since the interpreter testified to substantially the same statements.
[1] Testimony regarding statements made through an interpreter is admissible as evidence, with the interpretation affecting the weight but not the competency of the evidence.
[2] The testimony of a witness who heard a conversation conducted through an interpreter is competent evidence, even if the witness's understanding of one party's statements…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Where two parties, speaking different languages, and who cannot understand each other, converse through an interpreter, the words of the interpreter, which are their necessary medium of communication, are adopted by both, and made a part of their conversation, and the interpretation under such circumstances is prima facie to be deemed correct.”
Establishes the foundational rule that interpreter-mediated statements are admissible and adopted by both parties
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenao was convicted of trafficking by possession of over 400 grams of cocaine. Shortly after his arrest, Henao made an oral statement in Spanish that …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competent Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The primary point on this appeal from a conviction for trafficking by possession of over 400 grams of cocaine claims that the testimony of the investigating officer as to the contents of an oral statement by the defendant shortly after his arrest was hearsay and hence erroneously admitted because Henao made it in Spanish and the officer could and did testify only to the English translation rendered by an interpreter. Meacham v. State, 45 Fla. 71, 33 So. 983 (1903) compels rejection of this contention. There, the court stated in its syllabus:
1. Where two parties, speaking different languages, and who cannot understand each other, converse through an interpreter, the words of the interpreter, which are their necessary medium of communication, are adopted by both, and made a part of their conversation, and the interpretation under such circumstances is prima facie to be deemed correct. In such cases either party, or a third party who hears the conversation, may testify to it as he understands it, although for his understanding of what was said by one of the parties he is dependent on the interpretation which was a part of the conversation. The fact that such conversation was had through an interpreter affects the weight, but not the competency, of the evidence.
But cf., Rosell v. State, 433 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), rev. denied, 446 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1984) (dictum indicating contrary rule without citing Meacham); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Ganz, 119 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960) (same); see generally, Annot., Statements to Witness Through Interpreter, 12 A.L.R. 4th 1016, 1023 (1982).
It should also be noted that since, without objection,1 the interpreter herself took the stand and gave a version of He-nao’s statements which did not materially differ from the officer’s, his testimony may properly be considered as no more than cumulative and therefore harmless. Stigletts v. McDonald, 135 Fla. 385, 186 So. 233 (1938); Lane v. State, 430 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Sec. 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1981).
We likewise find no merit in the argument that the evidence of the defendant’s possession of cocaine was insufficient to support the verdict. Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); Wale v. State, 397 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Affirmed.
. While there is some claim as to her inadequacy, none was presented below.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Santana v. State, 535 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…s merely cumulative of evidence properly admitted and thus was harmless. See Feimster v. State, 491 So. 2d 321, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.1986); Brunette v. State, 456 So. 2d 1324, 1324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Henao v. State, 454 So. 2d 19, 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Fifth, evidence of (a) the defendant’s drug use, (b) a statement made by the defendant’s mother, and (c) a statement by the deceased two months before the homicide, although technically inadmissible, were not so prejudicial t…
-
Chao v. State, 453 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
-
Grover James Rodgers v. State, 491 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Gilbert v. State, 487 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); T.J.T. v. State, 460 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Henao v. State, 454 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Knight v. State, 392 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1983)
- Wale v. State, 397 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Stigletts v. McDonald, 135 Fla. 385 (Fla. 1938)
- Rosell v. State, 433 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Meacham v. State, 45 Fla. 71 (Fla. 1903)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ganz, 119 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Williams v. State, 430 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Lane v. State, 430 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)