State v. Cazarez-Hernandez

When analyzing the legitimacy of a Miranda warnings, the Court’s inquiry is whether the concepts have been expressed rather than whether the words have been accurately translated. The warning must convey that the Defendant has the right to remain silent and to consult with counsel and that any statements that the person makes may be used against the person in a criminal prosecution.

Defendant appealed the judgments of conviction for assault, strangulation, and interference with making a report. Defendant argued on appeal that the State did not prove that he received adequately translated Miranda warnings in Spanish and that his statements were presumptively involuntary and required suppression. The State failed to meet its burden of proof that Defendant received adequate Miranda warnings, translated in Spanish. When Miranda warnings have been given, the Court’s inquiry is whether the concepts have been expressed rather than whether the words have been accurately translated. The warning must convey that Defendant has the right to remain silent and to consult with counsel and that any statements that the person makes may be used against the person in a criminal prosecution. There was no evidence presented regarding what information was contained on the prepared Miranda card. Nor was there evidence that the information was communicated to Defendant because there was no evidence of the conversation to Defendant in Spanish. Reversed and remanded.