« Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court issues one today | Main | Ind. Decisions - List of Court of Appeals NFP opinions issued for the week ending November 22, 2006 »

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 2 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Jesus Arrieta v. State of Indiana (interlocutory appeal from the Clark Superior Court, Judge Blau), an 11-page, 2-1 opinion (with dissent beginning on p. 7), Judge Baker writes:

Appellant-defendant Jesus Arrieta brings this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order refusing to appoint an interpreter at government expense. Arrieta argues that a non-English-speaking criminal defendant is entitled to the appointment of an interpreter at government expense whether or not the defendant has established indigency. Finding that this is a matter best left to the legislature and that nothing in statutory or constitutional law requires a trial court to pay for an interpreter for a defendant who has not established financial need, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. * * *

CRONE, J., concurs.
VAIDIK, J., dissents with opinion:

I must respectfully dissent. “The right to a fair trial is a fundamental liberty secured by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503 (1976). While the majority recognizes that in some cases “[an] interpreter is necessary to implement fundamental notions of due process such as the right to be present at trial, the right to confront one’s accusers, and the right to counsel,” slip op. at 4 (quoting Martinez Chavez v. State, 534 N.E.2d 731, 736 (Ind. 1989)), it goes on to hold that a non-English speaking defendant is required to pay for this service unless he or she can make a showing of financial need. I disagree. * * *

I acknowledge the added financial strain that court-provided interpreters could put on Indiana’s cash-strapped counties. Nonetheless, some rights transcend fiscal considerations and are so important as to be considered fundamental. As the Indiana Supreme Court has recognized, “[an] interpreter is necessary to implement fundamental notions of due process.” Martinez Chavez, 534 N.E.2d at 736. I would reverse the decision of the trial court and order it to appoint an interpreter to serve Arrieta in all future court-related proceedings in this cause. I would also hold that if Arrieta is eventually convicted, the trial court may, in its discretion, order Arrieta to pay the costs of his prosecution, including the cost of the interpreter.

In State of Indiana v. Misty Jackson & Charles Jackson, II, a 7-page iopinion, Judge Crone writes:
On January 3, 2006, Misty and Charles filed motions for discharge and dismissal pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(C). They asserted that the State had failed to bring them to trial within the seventy-day time frame of Criminal Rule 4(B)(1), which according to them started October 20, 2005, when the trial court clerk issued a certification of venue, and expired December 29, 2005. On January 6, 2006, the State filed a motion to set trial date. Also on that date, the trial court held a hearing on Misty’s and Charles’s motions for discharge and dismissal. On January 9, 2006, the trial court granted those motions. The State now appeals. * * *

The trial court did not err in granting Misty’s and Charles’s motions for discharge and dismissal. We therefore affirm.

NFP civil opinions today (0):

NFP criminal opinions today (2) (link to cases):

Charles Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Randall McKinney v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 22, 2006 11:11 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions