State v. Ambriz-Arguello

I respectfully dissent. I agree that the interpreter’s assertions of the English meaning of defendant’s Spanish statements in the videotape and transcript, when offered to prove the correctness of her translation, are hearsay. As *591noted by the majority, under State v. Montoya-Franco, 250 Or App 665, 669, 282 P3d 839, rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012), “[a]n out-of-court translation of a non-English speaker’s statements to a third party constitutes hearsay because the interpreter’s translation constitutes an assertion of the English meaning of the original statement.”

I disagree, however, that when the…