A Washington County man will get a new trial because of questions about the accuracy of an English translation of a statement he gave to police in Spanish, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The court overturned the conviction of Jose Luis Mendez, who was sentenced to 60 years in prison for rape, attempted murder, aggravated residential burglary and aggravated assault.
Mendez was arrested and charged after his former girlfriend told police he broke into her home, raped her and badly injured her in May 2009. A detective interviewed Mendez, and the interview was recorded.
An employee of the prosecutor’s office prepared a translation of the interview, and it was admitted as evidence at Mendez’s trial in Washington County Circuit Court. The defense offered a different translation into evidence, which differed from the state’s translation in some respects.
During the interview, Mendez admitted he grabbed his girlfriend’s neck. The detective asked him if he tried to kill her, and Mendez asked why he would kill her. The detective said, “Grabbing her by the neck?”
According to the prosecution’s translator, Mendez then said, “I did that.” According to the defense’s translator, Mendez said, “I didn’t do that.”
The defense’s translator testified he is a certified translator for Arkansas. The translator with the prosecutor’s office had taken the translator’s qualification exam but failed.
Matt Durrett, chief deputy prosecutor handling Mendez’s case, said he has relied on bilingual employees in the prosecutor’s office or local police departments to handle translations. Some of the translators have not been certified with the state.
He said Thursday’s ruling means future judges will likely require translators who have been certified by the Administrative Office of the Courts.
In the Mendez case, the trial judge admitted both translations, concluding the jury could decide which version was more credible. The Supreme Court said in its unanimous opinion Thursday the judge erred.
“Only where two qualified translations are offered does the court determine whether there is a genuine issue as to the accuracy of a material part of the translation to be resolved by the trier of fact,” Justice Karen Baker wrote in the opinion.
“Here, not only was the state’s translator uncertified, he had taken and failed the certification exam. Accordingly, the state’s translation should not have been admitted,” Baker wrote.
The high court sent the case back to circuit court for a new proceeding. No date has been set for a new trial.
Chris Freiberg contributed to this report.