Massachusetts Appeals Court Addresses Police Interviews Conducted in Spanish and the Right to a Translated Transcript

When police interrogate a defendant in a language other than English, a basic problem arises at trial: how does anyone know that the English version of what the defendant supposedly said is accurate?

That problem becomes particularly significant when the Commonwealth wants a police officer to tell an English-speaking jury what the defendant said during an interview conducted entirely in Spanish.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed part of that problem more than a decade ago in Commonwealth v. Portillo. The Court recognized the obvious reliability concerns presented by foreign-language interrogations and held that a trial judge has discretion to require the Commonwealth to prepare an English-language transcript before introducing the defendant's recorded statements in its case-in-chief.

In Commonwealth v. Figueroa, decided on August 7, 2026, the Massachusetts Appeals Court considered how far that rule extends.

The defendant argued that the Commonwealth should not have been permitted to use statements from his Spanish-language police interrogation because prosecutors never supplied the defense with an English transcript. The trial judge initially prohibited the Commonwealth from using the statements in its case-in-chief. But after the defendant testified and claimed self-defense, the judge allowed the Spanish-speaking detective who had interviewed him to testify in rebuttal about significant details that the defendant had not mentioned during the interrogation.

The Appeals Court affirmed.

It declined to extend Portillo into a categorical rule requiring a translated transcript every time the Commonwealth seeks to use a defendant's foreign-language statements.

But the decision is more qualified than that simple result might suggest.

The Appeals Court also emphasized that a trial judge retains the authority to require a translation and exclude the statements if the Commonwealth does not provide one. Indeed, the court expressly observed that prudence favors translating a foreign-language interrogation and giving defense counsel a copy before trial.

For lawyers handling criminal cases involving defendants whose first language is not English, Figueroa is therefore important on both sides of the issue.

A Fight in a Framingham Park

The case arose from a confrontation at Mary Dennison Park in Framingham in July 2019.

According to the evidence the jury could have credited, two brothers were drinking beer in the park when Daniel Figueroa arrived in a car. An argument followed.

The Commonwealth's evidence was that Figueroa returned to his car, retrieved a metal pipe, and attacked the brothers. One brother testified that Figueroa repeatedly struck him in the head. The brother attempted to protect himself using a trash can before falling to the ground.

Figueroa then allegedly struck the second brother in the head before getting back into his vehicle and driving away.

Police responded to a 911 call and found both men bleeding heavily from their heads.

Based on information obtained from witnesses, police later arrested Figueroa in Ashland and brought him to the Framingham police station.

Police Question Figueroa in Spanish

Figueroa's first language is Spanish.

After his arrest, a Spanish-speaking detective questioned him in Spanish. The entire interrogation was recorded on audio and video.

The interview ended after Figueroa complained that he was dizzy. He was taken by ambulance to a hospital.

Police later obtained a search warrant for his vehicle. In the trunk, they discovered three pry bars, a metal pipe, and a metal bicycle lock.

The recorded interrogation was eventually provided to the defense in discovery.

But there was an important omission.

The Commonwealth never prepared or provided defense counsel with an English-language transcript of what Figueroa and the detective said during the interview.

That became important at trial.

The Commonwealth Initially Wanted to Use the Interview

Figueroa went to trial in May 2022 on two counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.

Before the evidence began, the prosecutor informed the judge that the Commonwealth intended to offer the video recording of Figueroa's interview, although apparently without its audio component. The prosecutor acknowledged that the Commonwealth did not have a transcript of the Spanish-language audio.

The prosecutor also anticipated calling the detective to testify about the substance of what Figueroa had said.

The defense objected.

Relying on the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Portillo, Figueroa argued that the Commonwealth should not be permitted to introduce a detective's English-language recollection of statements made during a Spanish-language interrogation unless it first provided the defense with an English transcript.

The trial judge agreed with the defense, at least initially.

He prohibited the Commonwealth from introducing Figueroa's statements or the recorded interview during its case-in-chief.

But the judge gave Figueroa an important warning.

If Figueroa testified, the statements might become admissible.

Figueroa chose to testify.

Figueroa Claims Self-Defense

At trial, Figueroa gave the jury an account of the confrontation that differed significantly from the Commonwealth's version.

He claimed self-defense.

According to his testimony, both brothers had knives and were attempting to stab him. Figueroa testified that he had to use a tree branch to defend himself.

Those details mattered.

If the jury believed them, they could fundamentally change how it evaluated the confrontation.

But they also created a problem for the defense.

According to the detective who had questioned Figueroa after his arrest, Figueroa had said nothing during his police interview about either brother possessing a knife.

He had also said nothing about defending himself with a tree branch.

After Figueroa testified, the Commonwealth called the detective in rebuttal.

Over the defense's objection, the judge allowed him to testify about those omissions.

The jury ultimately convicted Figueroa of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon against one of the brothers. It acquitted him of the charge involving the other brother.

What Commonwealth v. Portillo Requires

The central legal issue on appeal involved the Supreme Judicial Court's 2012 decision in Commonwealth v. Portillo.

Portillo recognized the special reliability problems that arise when the Commonwealth seeks to introduce statements made during a recorded interrogation conducted in another language.

An English-speaking prosecutor may not know whether an officer's description of the conversation is accurate.

Defense counsel may face the same problem.

The judge and jury ordinarily have no independent ability to determine whether the English version accurately reflects what the defendant actually said.

Those concerns are not minor.

A slightly different translation can change the meaning of a statement. Context can be lost. A qualification can become an admission. An ambiguous phrase can suddenly sound definitive.

And because statements attributed to a criminal defendant can become some of the most damaging evidence at trial, accuracy matters.

In Portillo, the Supreme Judicial Court held that where the Commonwealth intends to introduce a defendant's recorded foreign-language statements in its case-in-chief, the trial judge has discretion to require the Commonwealth to prepare and provide the defense with an English translation.

The judge may also exclude the statements if the Commonwealth refuses to do so.

Figueroa Asked the Appeals Court to Extend Portillo

Figueroa argued that the same requirement should apply whenever the Commonwealth uses a foreign-language statement against a defendant.

In other words, the protection should not depend on whether the Commonwealth offers the statement during its initial presentation of evidence or later for impeachment or rebuttal.

There is some intuitive force to that position.

The translation problem does not disappear because the defendant has testified.

If the concern is whether an officer accurately remembers and translates what a Spanish-speaking defendant said, that concern exists regardless of which stage of the trial the testimony occurs.

The Appeals Court nevertheless declined to adopt a categorical rule.

It viewed Figueroa's argument as requiring an extension of Portillo beyond what the Supreme Judicial Court had actually held.

As an intermediate appellate court, the Appeals Court concluded that it was not its role to expand a rule established by the SJC into an automatic requirement applicable in every circumstance.

That meant the trial judge retained discretion.

And on the facts before it, the Appeals Court found no abuse of that discretion.

The Use of the Statements in Rebuttal Mattered

An important part of the court's reasoning involved the difference between evidence introduced in the Commonwealth's case-in-chief and evidence used to impeach a defendant after he chooses to testify.

A defendant does not lose his constitutional rights by taking the witness stand.

But once a defendant voluntarily testifies, his credibility may generally be tested in the same manner as that of other witnesses.

Prior inconsistent statements may therefore become relevant.

And in some circumstances, evidence that could not have been introduced affirmatively by the Commonwealth may nevertheless be used to impeach testimony given by the defendant at trial.

The Appeals Court pointed to that principle in affirming Figueroa's conviction.

The judge had barred the Commonwealth from using the interrogation during its case-in-chief.

He had also warned Figueroa that if he testified, prior statements could become admissible.

Figueroa then testified that the two men had knives and that he defended himself with a tree branch.

The detective's rebuttal testimony was offered to establish that Figueroa had never mentioned those significant facts when interviewed after the incident.

The Appeals Court concluded that allowing the testimony for that limited purpose did not amount to an abuse of discretion.

The Defense Did Not Show That the Detective's Translation Was Wrong

The Appeals Court also focused on what Figueroa had not established.

He did not demonstrate that the detective inaccurately translated his statements.

He did not show that the detective's memory of the interrogation was wrong.

He did not argue at trial that the lack of a transcript left defense counsel unable to cross-examine the detective effectively.

And he did not request a continuance so that the defense could obtain its own translation and determine whether the detective's account was accurate.

Those omissions mattered.

The court was unwilling to reverse the conviction based on the possibility of translation error where the defendant had not identified an actual translation error or shown concrete prejudice arising from the absence of the transcript.

For defense lawyers, that portion of the decision deserves attention.

An objection based on Portillo should not end with the proposition that no transcript exists.

Where possible, the defense should make a record explaining why that matters in the particular case.

Is the officer's translation disputed?

Does the recording contain language the officer has summarized inaccurately?

Are important words ambiguous?

Is the defense unable to test the officer's recollection without an independent translation?

Would a translated transcript reveal statements favorable to the defendant that the officer omitted from the police report?

The stronger the record on those issues, the stronger the argument for exclusion.

The Appeals Court Did Not Give the Commonwealth a Free Pass

It would be easy to read Figueroa too broadly.

The decision does not hold that prosecutors are free to use an officer's recollection of foreign-language interrogations without ever preparing a translation.

Quite the opposite.

In a significant footnote, the Appeals Court emphasized that its decision should not be understood to mean that a trial judge could not exclude that testimony.

A judge confronted with the same circumstances could, in the proper exercise of discretion, require the Commonwealth to provide a translated transcript before permitting an interrogating officer to testify.

The court then returned to the language of Portillo, which strongly favors providing an accurate translation when the Commonwealth possesses an audible recording of a defendant's foreign-language statements.

The Appeals Court's practical conclusion was straightforward:

Prudence dictates translating the interview and providing defense counsel with a copy.

That is not an insignificant observation.

The Commonwealth prevailed in Figueroa, but prosecutors who read the decision as permission to dispense with translations altogether would be reading too much into it.

A different trial judge could reach a different discretionary decision.

Foreign-Language Police Interviews Present Special Reliability Problems

The Supreme Judicial Court has previously recognized the need for increased safeguards when police question people who do not speak English.

That concern is understandable.

The American criminal justice system depends heavily on words.

What did the defendant say?

What did the officer ask?

Was the question understood?

Was the answer responsive?

Did a word have more than one meaning?

Was something a denial, an admission, a qualification, or simply a misunderstanding?

When the judge, lawyers, and jury do not speak the language used during the interrogation, they cannot answer those questions merely by listening to the recording.

Somebody has to translate.

And the identity of that person matters.

A police officer who participated in the investigation is not simply a neutral transcription device. Even when acting entirely in good faith, the officer is recounting a conversation from memory and translating it at the same time.

A written translation allows both sides to examine what was actually said and identify areas of disagreement before the testimony reaches the jury.

That is precisely why the translation issue should be addressed before trial whenever possible.

The Court Also Considered Statements in Figueroa's Medical Records

Figueroa raised a separate challenge to statements contained in hospital and ambulance records.

Two entries in the hospital records referred to his having been arrested or being in police custody when he began complaining of pain.

Figueroa argued that the statements may not have come from him and could have been supplied by police. He also objected to the references to his arrest and custody.

The Appeals Court declined to decide whether those statements should have been admitted.

Even assuming the judge made an error, the court concluded that it was not prejudicial.

The reason was straightforward: the disputed information was cumulative.

Figueroa himself had testified that he drove home after the confrontation, was arrested there, complained of dizziness, and was taken to the hospital.

The medical records therefore told the jury little that it had not already heard from Figueroa.

The Ambulance Record Was Properly Admitted

The court reached a different conclusion regarding an ambulance record.

The report contained a statement that Figueroa had not lost consciousness and that his head began hurting when police picked him up.

The Appeals Court held that this statement was properly admitted under the medical-records exception to the hearsay rule.

The information concerned the nature of Figueroa's injuries and when his symptoms began.

Those subjects directly related to medical diagnosis and treatment.

The fact that the statement might also have some relevance to the criminal case did not make it inadmissible.

The central question is whether the record principally concerns treatment and medical history, not whether some part of it happens to bear on criminal responsibility.

What Commonwealth v. Figueroa Means for Massachusetts Criminal Cases

Figueroa is ultimately a decision about discretion and preservation.

It does not eliminate the protections recognized in Portillo.

Nor does it establish that a translated transcript is required every time a prosecutor wants to use a foreign-language statement.

Instead, the decision leaves substantial responsibility with the trial judge.

That makes the factual record especially important.

Defense counsel confronted with a foreign-language interrogation should consider the issue well before trial.

Has the Commonwealth prepared a translation?

Who prepared it?

Is the translation accurate?

Does the police report omit significant statements?

Does the officer interpret particular phrases differently from an independent translator?

Does the Commonwealth intend to introduce the statements during its case-in-chief, use them only if the defendant testifies, or both?

And if no translation has been produced, what practical disadvantage does that create for the defense?

Those questions should be answered before the officer takes the witness stand.

There is also an important strategic consequence when a defendant is considering whether to testify.

Evidence excluded from the Commonwealth's case-in-chief does not necessarily disappear from the case altogether.

A defendant's testimony can open the door to impeachment evidence that the prosecution could not otherwise have introduced.

That does not mean a defendant should not testify. In some cases, particularly self-defense cases, the defendant's testimony may be essential.

But the decision must be made with a clear understanding of what evidence may become admissible once the defendant takes the stand.

Figueroa is a useful reminder of that principle.

Frequently Asked Questions About Foreign-Language Police Interviews in Massachusetts

Must prosecutors translate a Spanish-language police interrogation before trial?

Not automatically in every case. Under Commonwealth v. Portillo, a trial judge has discretion to require the Commonwealth to provide an English-language transcript when it intends to use a recorded foreign-language interrogation in its case-in-chief. The judge may exclude the statements if the Commonwealth declines to provide one.

Can police testify about what a defendant said in Spanish without a transcript?

Potentially. Commonwealth v. Figueroa holds that the absence of a translated transcript does not automatically prevent a Spanish-speaking officer from testifying about a defendant's prior statements for impeachment or rebuttal. Whether to permit the testimony remains within the trial judge's discretion.

Can a judge exclude the statements if prosecutors do not provide a translation?

Yes. The Appeals Court specifically cautioned that Figueroa should not be read otherwise. A judge may determine that fairness and reliability require the Commonwealth to provide a translated transcript before using the statements.

Why did the defendant lose the issue in Figueroa?

Among other things, he did not establish that the detective's translation was inaccurate, show that the detective's memory was faulty, claim that he could not adequately cross-examine the detective, or seek additional time to obtain an independent translation. The Commonwealth also used the statements in rebuttal after Figueroa testified, rather than in its case-in-chief.

Can statements from medical records be used in a Massachusetts criminal trial?

Sometimes. Massachusetts law permits admission of hospital records relating to treatment and medical history. Statements concerning symptoms, injuries, and the timing of those symptoms may be admissible even if they also have some relevance to criminal culpability. Other statements may raise hearsay or prejudice issues depending on their source and purpose.

Challenging Statements and Evidence in Massachusetts Criminal Cases

Cases involving recorded interrogations are often more complicated when the questioning occurred in a language other than English.

A recording does not eliminate questions about accuracy. Sometimes it makes those questions easier to identify.

An experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney should review not only the police report, but the recording itself, the circumstances of the interrogation, any translation prepared by the Commonwealth, and the precise statements prosecutors intend to use at trial.

At Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we represent people charged with serious criminal offenses throughout Massachusetts. We regularly litigate motions involving statements to police, Miranda rights, identification evidence, searches and seizures, and the admissibility of evidence at trial.

When the Commonwealth's case depends on what a defendant supposedly said, the exact words matter. When those words were spoken in another language, the accuracy of the translation matters just as much.