PJC Malpractice 2024

PJC 40.15

A DMONITORY I NSTRUCTIONS

COMMENT When to use. PJC 40.15 should be used when testimony or evidence, including documents and audio recordings, is offered in languages other than English and then translated by an interpreter for jurors. Source of instruction. This instruction is derived from Sanchez-Rodriguez v. State , No. 05-12-01538-CR, 2014 WL 1178337, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 21, 2014, no pet.) (not designated for publication) and Peralta v. State , 338 S.W.3d 598, 606 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, no pet.). See also Tierrablanca v. State , No. 14-20 00271-CR, 2022 WL 1671045, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 26, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication); PJC 40.3A (instructing the jury that answers must be based only on evidence admitted in court and not to share special knowledge or experiences with other jurors). Timing of the instruction. In the case of a testifying witness, the instruction should be provided before the interpretation is admitted into evidence. Otherwise, the instruction should be given before a recording or written exhibit is admitted into evi dence. Challenging an improper translation. The court of criminal appeals has con cluded there is no real way for an appellant to argue that a translation is improper on appeal. Even when an interpreter is qualified, on occasion, the accuracy of particular translations may become a fact question for the jury. Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Hammock v. State , 46 S.W.3d 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Cross-examination, including in some cases of the interpreter, is the appropriate means to challenge an improper translation. See Gar cia , 887 S.W.2d at 874–75. When a dispute about a translation occurs, the aggrieved party “must settle the question of a translation’s accuracy at trial by impeaching the translation; cross-exam ination of the witness presents the most convenient vehicle, but impeachment may be accomplished by many other means.” Garcia , 887 S.W.2d at 875 & n.8 (listing inde pendent evidence and cross-examination of the interpreter among those “other means”). Texas Rule of Evidence 1009 outlines a similar procedure for objecting to translations of a foreign language document, ultimately leaving the issue to the trier of fact if there is “a genuine issue about the accuracy of a material part of the translation.” Tex. R. Evid. 1009(d). When there is contrary evidence raising a fact question about the court interpreter’s translation for the jury to resolve, the instructions at PJC 40.15 would have to be modified so as not to comment on how the jury should resolve that dispute—although a juror still could not rely on his or her own translation. See Her nandez v. New York , 500 U.S. 352, 360 (1991).

34