CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2023)
Hannah Berg
In Martinez v. State, 550 P.3d 1131 (Alaska Ct. App. 2023), the court of appeals held that a lack of a translator in a criminal defendant’s native language does not automatically render involuntary a waiver of the right to testify. (Id. at 1133). Martinez was a criminal defendant charged with second-degree sexual assault following a jury trial. (Id.). Originally from Mexico, Martinez’s native language was Triqui, and he had difficulties communicating in both English and Spanish. (Id. at 1133, 1134). Unable to locate a Triqui translator, Martinez and his attorney agreed to using two court-certified Spanish interpreters and having Martinez’s pastor present to assist during breaks. (Id. at 1134–35). His Spanish-speaking pastor testified that he was able to communicate with Martinez by speaking slowly, adjusting some vocabulary, and repeating himself. (Id. at 1135). One of the Spanish interpreters confirmed at the outset of the trial that she and Martinez could communicate with each other. (Id.). Martinez’s lawyer notified the trial court that Martinez had voluntarily chosen not to testify, and the trial court’s LaVigne inquiry confirmed this decision. (Id.). On appeal, Martinez argued that his waiving of his right to testify was involuntary without the presence of a Triqui interpreter. (Id. at 1136). The court of appeals rejected Martinez’s argument, emphasizing that Martinez and his attorney did not object to the plan of having Spanish interpreters. (Id.). Additionally, the court of appeals reasoned that there was no evidence that the presence of a Triqui interpreter would have influenced his choice to waive his right to testify. (Id.). Affirming Martinez’s conviction, the court of appeals determined that the absence of a translator for a criminal defendant’s native language does not inherently make a waiver of the right to testify involuntary. (Id. at 1133).
