People v. Romero, 78 N.Y.2d 355 (1991)
Testimony by a witness about statements made to them through an interpreter is inadmissible hearsay if the interpreter had a motive to mislead or a reason to be inaccurate in their translation.
Summary
Defendant Romero, who only spoke Spanish, was convicted of drug sales to an undercover officer who only spoke English. A paid informant acted as the interpreter. At trial, the officer testified about what the informant said the defendant had said. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the officer’s testimony was inadmissible hearsay. The court reasoned that the informant’s paid status and involvement in setting up the drug buys created a motive to mislead, undermining the reliability of the translations and the admissibility of the officer’s testimony repeating those translations.
Facts
Defendant Romero, a Spanish speaker, was arrested for selling drugs to an undercover officer, Tillery, who only spoke English. The sales were arranged by Davila, a paid informant fluent in both languages, who acted as the interpreter. Davila received payment contingent on the success of the prosecution. Tillery testified about the English translations Davila provided during their interactions with Romero.
Procedural History
Romero was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Romero appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that Tillery’s testimony was inadmissible hearsay and that Davila’s contingent fee arrangement violated his due process rights. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remanded for a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether an undercover officer’s testimony, repeating statements made by a paid informant acting as an interpreter during a drug transaction, constitutes inadmissible hearsay when the informant had a motive to mislead.
Holding
Yes, because the informant’s role and compensation structure created a motive to mislead, undermining the reliability of the translated statements and rendering the officer’s testimony inadmissible hearsay.
Court’s Reasoning
The court determined that Tillery’s testimony about Davila’s translations was hearsay because it was an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that Romero agreed to sell drugs. While the agency exception to the hearsay rule allows interpreted testimony when the interpreter acts as the party’s agent, this exception does not apply when the interpreter has a motive to mislead. The court distinguished this case from cases like United States v. Da Silva, where the interpreter was considered a mere “language conduit.” Here, Davila’s payment was contingent on a “prosecutable case,” creating a clear motive to ensure Romero’s conviction, thus undermining his neutrality and the reliability of his translations. The court emphasized that the probative value of Tillery’s testimony hinged entirely on the truthfulness of Davila’s translations. Repeating potentially false translations does not enhance the underlying reliability. As the court stated, “All that Davila’s testimony could have ‘verified’ is that Tillery remembered and repeated Davila’s supposed falsehoods correctly.” The court rejected the argument that Davila’s in-court testimony “verified” his prior translations because his motive to lie remained. The court concluded that admitting Tillery’s testimony was not harmless error, as it bolstered the credibility of a key witness whose credibility was very much in question. The court declined to address the due process argument because it was not preserved for review.