Echemendia v. State, 735 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Echemendia v. State, 735 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Thornton v. State (fladistctapp, 2003-08-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Thornton v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Echemendia v. State, 735 So.2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); McCallister v. State, 779 So.2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Perez v. State, 689 So.2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jorge
v.
ECHEMENDIA v. The STATE of Florida
No. 98-2511.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jun 2, 1999.
735 So. 2d 555
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant., Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Christine E. Zahralban, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Gersten, Goderich, Green.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Jorge Echemendia, appeals from his conviction arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial. We agree.

The defendant was charged with burglary, shooting a deadly missile, and first degree murder. Lazario Drake, who was present at the time of the shooting, was called to testify by the State. Mr. Drake spoke only Spanish and an interpreter was used to interpret his testimony from Spanish to English. Mr. Drake gave testimony about a statement the defendant made regarding the victim that when interpreted by the interpreter seemed as if the defendant used a racial slur when referring to the victim. Because this was a misinterpretation of the witness’ statement by the interpreter, defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial arguing that a curative instruction would be inadequate. The trial court denied the motion for mis[*556] trial. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and this appeal followed.

Pursuant to section 90.606(3), Florida Statute (1997), an interpreter must “make a true interpretation of the questions asked and the answers given.... ” In the instant case, the interpretation given was not “a true interpretation of the ... answers given,” and as a result, made it seem as if the defendant used a racial slur when referring to the victim. Further, because the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming, the error cannot be deemed harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Therefore, we must reverse and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.