Foreign-Language Interrogations and Impeachment: Commonwealth v. Figueroa

On August 7, 2026, the Appeals Court decided Commonwealth v. Figueroa, No. 25-P-1027 (Mass. App. Ct. Aug. 7, 2026), a case about the use of a defendant’s statements from a police interrogation conducted in a language other than English. The defendant, whose first language is Spanish, was questioned in Spanish, and the Commonwealth never produced an English transcript of the recorded interview. The Court held that the trial judge had discretion to allow the interrogating detective to testify to the defendant’s prior statements in order to impeach him after he testified, even without a transcript. The conviction for assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon under G. L. c. 265, § 15A (b) was affirmed. The decision matters for any client who is interviewed by police in a language other than English.

The Rule From Portillo

The governing case is Commonwealth v. Portillo, 462 Mass. 324 (2012). Under Portillo, when the Commonwealth intends to offer, in its case-in-chief, statements a defendant made in a foreign-language recorded interview, the trial judge has discretion to require the Commonwealth to provide defense counsel with an English transcript of the interview before trial, and to exclude the statements if the Commonwealth declines to prepare one. The rationale is reliability. Without a transcript, a prosecutor may be unable to verify whether the interrogating officer’s account rests on an accurate translation and recollection, which can implicate the duty to disclose exculpatory evidence. The Supreme Judicial Court has separately emphasized enhanced protections for non-English-speaking defendants, including the recording of interviews conducted through interpreters. See Commonwealth v. AdonSoto, 475 Mass. 497 (2016).

What the Court Decided

In Figueroa, the trial judge kept the statements out of the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief, but warned the defendant that the statements might be admissible if he testified. The defendant did testify, and he described a version of events, including a claim that the two brothers had knives and that he defended himself with a tree branch, that he had not mentioned during the recorded interview. The Commonwealth then called the interrogating detective in rebuttal to establish the omission. The Appeals Court held that Portillo does not require a transcript before the Commonwealth uses a defendant’s prior inconsistent statements to impeach him, and that the decision remains within the trial judge’s discretion. A defendant who voluntarily testifies waives the privilege against self-incrimination and may be impeached like any other witness. The decision whether to testify is therefore inseparable from the decision to invoke the right to remain silent during the investigation.

The Court was careful about the limits of its holding. It stated that a judge could, in the proper exercise of discretion, still refuse to allow such testimony without a translated transcript, and it noted that prudence favors translating the interview and providing a copy to defense counsel. The Court also observed that the defendant had not shown that the detective’s translation was inaccurate, had not sought a continuance to obtain a translation, and had not argued that he was unable to cross-examine the detective. The outcome rested on the absence of any such showing, not on a rule that a transcript is never required.

The Medical Records Question

The defendant also challenged three statements admitted from his medical and ambulance records, including references to his arrest and police custody. Records kept by hospitals are admissible under the statutory hearsay exception, G. L. c. 233, § 79, so far as they relate to the treatment and medical history of the patient. See Mass. G. Evid. § 803(6)(B) (2026). Second-level hearsay within such records is admissible when it rests on the personal knowledge of those under a medical obligation to transmit the information. See Commonwealth v. Wall, 469 Mass. 652 (2014); Bouchie v. Murray, 376 Mass. 524 (1978). A record that relates directly and mainly to treatment and medical history is admissible even though the recorded facts may incidentally bear on culpability. See Commonwealth v. Cole, 473 Mass. 317 (2015); Commonwealth v. DiMonte, 427 Mass. 233 (1998). The Court did not decide whether the references to custody and arrest were properly admitted, because any error was not prejudicial. The references were cumulative of the defendant’s own testimony that he was arrested and then taken to the hospital.

The Bottom Line for a Pending Case

The protections around a foreign-language interrogation are strongest before the defendant testifies, and a defendant who takes the stand may make admissible the very statements that were kept out of the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief. When a client is questioned in a language other than English, defense counsel should demand a recording and a certified translation early, should compare the officer’s account against the recording, and should be prepared to seek exclusion or a continuance where the accuracy of the translation is in question. Where the client is not a United States citizen, the same statement can carry immigration consequences on top of the criminal exposure. These issues are part of understanding what to do in the first 24 hours after an arrest and the broader Massachusetts criminal court process. Where a statement was obtained unlawfully, the remedy is litigated through the motion to suppress. Attorney Serpa reviews every recorded interview, and every translation of one, before deciding how a case should be tried.