People v Garcia
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 10, 2010
District Court of Nassau County, First District
The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
against
Thomas Garcia, Defendant.
2010NA024036
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney of Nassau County
Stuart Kanoff
Gary F. Knobel, J.
DECISION AFTER HEARING
The Hon. Rhonda E. Fischer, pursuant to an oral stipulation between the People and
defendant Thomas Garcia, referred to the undersigned the following issue to be resolved at the
Huntley hearing (see People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]: was the written
statement translated and transcribed into English by the police from an oral statement given to
the police in Spanish involuntarily made (see CPL 60.45) and therefore precluded from
being introduced at trial? The Court answers the question in the negative for the reasons set forth
below.
At the hearing, only one witness testified, Nassau County Police Department
Detective Jeffrey Rios, and he did so on behalf of the People.
Detective Rios, who is bilingual and fluent in both English and Spanish, testified on direct examination that he was introduced to the defendant by Detective Bastone of the Nassau County Police Department and that he was informed that the defendant only spoke Spanish. Detective Rios testified that the defendant was read his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 84 US 436 [1966]) in Spanish, verbatim from a card, the original of which was produced and submitted into evidence at the hearing. Detective Rios further testified that there was no deviation from that which was written on the card and that which he spoke to the defendant. The defendant's written affirmative response of "[y]es," accompanied by the defendant's signature and the date of September 14, 2010, indicated to Detective Rios that the defendant understood his rights as read, and was willing to answer Detective Rios' questions. Detective Rios then testified that the defendant was brought into an interview room in the precinct, upon which time the defendant was again advised of his rights. Detective Rios further testified that the defendant was calm and cooperative, and when the defendant was asked about the incident that transpired for which he was criminally charged, the defendant responded that he had taken his ex-girlfriend's bank card without her permission, and made three withdrawals from her account in the amounts of $200, $200 and $100, totaling $500. According to Detective Rios, the defendant remarked that he was sorry, that he repaid his ex-girlfriend and that he would not do it again. Detective Rios maintained that the defendant's entire statement of admission, although given orally in Spanish, was contemporaneously translated and transcribed into English by him (Detective Rios) with no [*2]deviation, and that the defendant affixed his signature to the written statement in English. Detective Rios further testified that no promises were offered to the defendant, nor was force or threats used in inducing the defendant's statement. In addition, Detective Rios claimed that no weapon was present, and the entire interview lasted between thirty to forty-five minutes, with Spanish spoken at all times.
On cross-examination, Detective Rios testified that he had taken the defendant's statement in Spanish, then translated and transcribed it directly into English on his computer, and when it was completed, he orally translated the written English statement into Spanish and read it to the defendant without pause. Although the defendant did not object to the accuracy of the statement that he had made as it was simultaneously translated and read back to him, no written Spanish document was produced for the defendant's review and approval. Detective Rios further testified that although he had taken statements in Spanish and transcribed them in Spanish in previous interviews with other defendants, he had not done so in the instant matter.
On redirect, Detective Rios stated that he was not required to type statements in Spanish which were made by Spanish-speaking defendants.
The Court finds Detective Rios' testimony to be credible, and contrary to the defendant's contention, a review of all the "surrounding circumstances" (People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 413-14 [2004]; People v Mora, 57 AD3d 571, 572 [2d Dept 2008]) demonstrates that the defendant's oral and written statements to Detective Rios were voluntarily made. The Court further finds, based upon the testimony adduced at the hearing, that the defendant was afforded Miranda warnings before giving his statements, which he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived before speaking with the detective during the interview that lasted only between thirty and forty-five minutes. There was no evidence presented at hearing that the defendant was threatened or abused prior or during the time he made the statements. Although the Spanish speaking defendant's oral statements were contemporaneously transcribed into English by the interviewing, bilingual detective, "the [written] statement [in English] was not thereby rendered inadmissible since [the detective] read it back to [the defendant] in Spanish before [the defendant] signed and adopted the [written English] statement as [his] own [citations omitted]" (People v Mora, 57 AD3d at 572). The fact that the defendant does not speak English does not render the confession inadmissible, and the accuracy of the detective's recording and translation of the statement are factual issues for the consideration of the trier of fact (see People v Montero, 273 AD2d 128, 128 [1st Dept 2000; People v Buckley, 299 AD2d 417, 417-18 [2d Dept 2002]).
Accordingly, the defendant's application to suppress his written statement to the police is denied.
The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.
SO ORDERED:
___________________________
Hon. Gary F. Knobel [*3]
District Court Judge
Dated: December 10, 2010
cc:
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
