From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Echemendia v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 2, 1999
735 So. 2d 555 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Opinion

No. 98-2511

Opinion filed June 2, 1999 JANUARY TERM, A.D. 1999

An Appeal from the Circuit Court of Dade County, Peter Lopez and Martin D. Kahn, Judges, L.T. No. 96-237.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Christine E. Zahralban, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, GODERICH and GREEN, JJ.


The defendant, Jorge Echemendia, appeals from his conviction arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial. We agree.

The defendant was charged with burglary, shooting a deadly missile, and first degree murder. Lazario Drake, who was present at the time of the shooting, was called to testify by the State. Mr. Drake spoke only Spanish and an interpreter was used to interpret his testimony from Spanish to English. Mr. Drake gave testimony about a statement the defendant made regarding the victim that when interpreted by the interpreter seemed as if the defendant used a racial slur when referring to the victim. Because this was a misinterpretation of the witness' statement by the interpreter, defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial arguing that a curative instruction would be inadequate. The trial court denied the motion for mistrial. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and this appeal followed.

Pursuant to section 90.606(3), Florida Statute (1997), an interpreter must "make a true interpretation of the questions asked and the answers given. . . ." In the instant case, the interpretation given was not "a true interpretation of the . . . answers given," and as a result, made it seem as if the defendant used a racial slur when referring to the victim. Further, because the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming, the error cannot be deemed harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). Therefore, we must reverse and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Echemendia v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 2, 1999
735 So. 2d 555 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
Case details for

Echemendia v. State

Case Details

Full title:JORGE V. ECHEMENDIA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jun 2, 1999

Citations

735 So. 2d 555 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing Cases

Thornton v. State

3. most serious of all, the rule which forbids even a prosecutorial intimation, let alone the direct…