Where the fact that defendant spoke Cantonese was undisputedly relevant to the issue of identity, the court did not violate any of defendant's constitutional rights when it informed the jury, at the People's request, that defendant was using a Cantonese interpreter at trial (see, People v Gomez,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
