Bedford v. Randhawa , 2014 Ohio 28 ( 2014 )

[Cite as Bedford v. Randhawa, 2014-Ohio-28.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 99578
CITY OF BEDFORD
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
BALTEK S. RANDHAWA
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Criminal Appeal from the
Bedford Municipal Court
Case No. 12 CRB 00276
BEFORE: E.A. Gallagher, J., Rocco, P.J., and Blackmon, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 9, 2014
-i-
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Joseph A. Dubyak
Dubyak & Goldense
50 Public Square
Suite 920
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Kenneth A. Schuman
Prosecutor, City of Bedford
5306 Transportation Boulevard
Garfield Heights, Ohio 44125
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} Appellant Baltek S. Randhawa (“Randhawa”) appeals his conviction
rendered after a bench trial in the Bedford Municipal Court. Randhawa assigns the
following errors for our review:
I. The trial court erred by not commencing trial in a timely fashion in
violation of R.C. 2945.71 and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.
II. The trial court erred by prohibiting a qualified interpreter from testifying.
{¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we reverse the decision of
the trial court, vacate Randhawa’s conviction and remand for proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
{¶3} On February 9, 2012, the city of Bedford, Ohio (“the City”) charged
Randhawa with aggravated menacing, a first-degree misdemeanor. Randhawa pleaded
not guilty at his arraignment, waived his rights to a speedy trial, several pretrials followed
and a trial was scheduled for May 15, 2012.
{¶4} On September 5, 2012, after Randhawa had been granted a number of
continuances and the trial had been rescheduled twice, the City’s prosecutor amended the
charge of aggravated menacing to a charge of menacing. On January 14, 2013, after
Randhawa had been granted additional continuances and the trial had again been
rescheduled, Randhawa filed a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. The trial
court denied the motion and the matter proceeded to a bench trial.
{¶5} Prior to the start of the trial, the City’s prosecutor again amended the charge
to disorderly conduct, a minor misdemeanor. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court
found Randhawa guilty of disorderly conduct and fined him $150 plus court costs.
Randhawa now appeals.
Assistance of Interpreter
{¶6} In the second assigned error, Randhawa argues the trial court erred by
prohibiting a qualified interpreter from testifying. Because we find this error dispositive
of the entire appeal, we shall address Randhawa’s assigned errors out of order.
{¶7} The underlying charges arose from threats Randhawa allegedly made to
Kuldeep Singh, a fellow member of a Sikh Temple. At trial, Singh testified that on
February 9, 2012, Randhawa made a speech at the temple in which he threatened to burn
Singh alive with kerosene oil and cut him in pieces like chiseling a piece of wood. Tr.
31.
{¶8} At the time of the alleged threats, Randhawa was speaking Punjabi, the native
language of the Punjabi people who inhabit the historical Punjab region of Pakistan and
India. Randhawa’s speech to the congregation at the Sikh temple was audio taped. In
anticipation of trial, Randhawa had a fellow member of the congregation, a qualified
interpreter, listen to the tape and transcribed it into English.
{¶9} At trial, Randhawa sought to have the written transcription introduced, but
the trial court refused. Randhawa then attempted to have the interpreter, Ms. Brar,
testify, but the trial court refused that request as well. Randhawa contends the trial
court’s refusal violates R.C. 2311.14(A)(1), which provides that the court shall appoint an
interpreter whenever a person “cannot readily understand or communicate” in a legal
proceeding. State v. Kamleh, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97092, 2012-Ohio-2061.
{¶10} While we agree with Randhawa’s argument, we disagree with the legal
authority he cites in support of his assigned error. The issue is not whether either
appellant Randhawa or Kuldeep Singh were proficient in the English language but, rather,
if the trier of fact was proficient in Punjabi.
{¶11} In this case, the allegedly threatening comments made by appellant to
Singh were spoken in Punjabi and recorded by audio tape. It is the best evidence in the
case and the best evidence upon which a conviction can be had.
{¶12} Because there is no evidence before this court that the trier of fact was
conversant, let alone fluent, in Punjabi, it is difficult to understand how the court could
reach a fair and just verdict without hearing the actual statements that were made.
{¶13} We acknowledge that a trial court has broad discretion in determining
whether a criminal defendant requires the assistance of an interpreter. State v. Al-Mosawi,
2d Dist. Montgomery Case No. 24633, 2012-Ohio-3385, citing State v. Saah, 67 Ohio
App.3d 86, 95, 585 N.E.2d 999 (8th Dist.1990). However, as we stated above, this case
does not center around whether the defendant-appellant or the witness required an
interpreter, which we concede was not necessary because both were proficient and fluent
in English. The question is whether the trial court needed an interpreter to understand
the alleged threats that were recorded in Punjabi.
{¶14} The trial court did not allow Randhawa to present Ms. Brar’s transcript of
the statements made to the congregation nor did it allow him to present her testimony as a
qualified Punjabi interpreter to support his defense that he did not make threats against
Kuldeep Singh. The trial court’s refusal stemmed from its concern that Ms. Brar was
biased, based on her 18-year relationship with Randhawa.
{¶15} While we don’t discredit the trial court’s concerns, Section (B) of R.C.
2311.14, which governs the court’s appointment of an interpreter, states that
Before entering upon official duties, the interpreter shall take an oath that
the interpreter will make a true interpretation of the proceedings to the party
or witness, and that the interpreter will truly repeat the statements made by
such party or witness to the court, to the best of the interpreter’s ability.
{¶16} Thus, in addition to the court’s questioning of Ms. Brar and its
acknowledgment that she was a qualified interpreter, the trial court had the opportunity to
order Ms. Brar to swear an oath that she would make a true interpretation of the
proceedings to the court. Given the ability of the court to provide this oath to Ms. Brar
coupled with the trial court’s need of a Punjabi interpreter, we find it error for the court
not to allow Ms. Brar to testify.
{¶17} Further, even considering all of the above, if the court believed Ms. Brar’s
bias could not be overcome, it could have continued the trial and ordered an interpreter
without a relationship to either party.
{¶18} The trial court erred in not affording Randhawa the opportunity to present
an English translation of the statements he made, which contained alleged threats made to
Kuldeep Singh in Punjabi.
{¶19} Judgment reversed and remanded.
It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into
execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., CONCURS;
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., DISSENTS
(WITH SEPARATE DISSENTING
OPINION ATTACHED)
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., DISSENTING:
{¶20} I respectfully dissent. The evidence in this case was sufficient to find the
defendant guilty. The city first charged the defendant with aggravated menacing; at the
time of trial the city had reduced the charge to disorderly conduct. During the bench
trial, the issue arose over an electronic recording of the event where the questionable
threatening remarks had been made. The majority opinion urges that the trial court, at
best, should have continued the matter for a different qualified interpreter.
{¶21} I believe it should not. The trial court had sufficient evidence to
determine the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Both the defendant and the victim were
proficient in English. The victim testified that Randhawa made a threatening speech at a
temple meeting. This was sufficient for the trial court to determine the city’s case.
{¶22} Besides, the trial court has broad discretion to determine whether an
interpreter is necessary in a minor misdemeanor trial. Additionally, the trial court was
in the best position to determine the credibility of the witness who was offered by
defendant and who had interpreted the taped recording. I am not sure we can take
judicial notice whether or not the trial court could speak the parties’ native language.
But we are sure of one thing, the trial court understood English and both the defendant
and the victim were proficient in English. Consequently, I would have affirmed the
conviction.