Interpreter Ambiguity, Written Translations, and Anders/Rule 26(c) Review Clarified: Muniz‑Rodriguez v. State

Introduction

In Muniz‑Rodriguez v. State, No. 120, 2025 (Del. Oct. 14, 2025), the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed convictions for first-degree child abuse and endangering the welfare of a child against Nelson J. Muniz‑Rodriguez. The appeal arrived under Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (Delaware’s analogue to an Anders withdrawal), with defense counsel asserting no nonfrivolous issues and the defendant submitting pro se points. The Court’s order, authored by Justice LeGrow, performs two functions of enduring significance:

It reaffirms and applies the Rule 26(c)/Anders framework requiring independent judicial review while enforcing strict preservation and plain-error rules for unpreserved claims.
It clarifies a practical procedure for handling multilingual text messages with region-specific idioms: avoid conferring undue weight through written translations when meanings vary; instead, rely on a certified interpreter to flag ambiguity and the testifying witness to explain the intended meaning, subject to cross-examination.

The appellant’s core complaints—failure to collect hospital-arrival video; non-presentation of photographs allegedly showing a positive relationship; investigation choices (brother not called, second phone line records not obtained); sufficiency of the evidence; and interpretive disputes about Spanish phrases in text messages—were all rejected under plain-error analysis or waiver. The Court concluded the appeal was “wholly without merit,” rendering counsel’s motion to withdraw moot upon affirmance.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court conducted the dual review required under Rule 26(c): (1) confirming that counsel performed a conscientious examination of the record and law, and (2) independently reviewing the record to ensure no arguably appealable issues exist. It then addressed the appellant’s pro se points:

Hospital-arrival video: No plain error in the State’s failure to collect or present any such video; no showing of favorability; and the record (including undisputed gastric perforation) made the claim immaterial.
Brother as witness / second phone line records: No plain error. Appellant consistently admitted he alone was the Child’s caregiver that day; no proffer of exculpatory information from the brother; no showing investigators knew of a second phone line.
Missing photographs: Argument waived; defense counsel told the trial court she did not intend to “get into” the existence or absence of those photos. The jury nevertheless heard that appellant had voluntarily shared multiple photos, implying a positive relationship.
Sufficiency of the evidence: Unpreserved; reviewed for plain error and rejected. Any inconsistencies in timing or causation estimates were for the jury; medical testimony supported inflicted trauma.
Spanish text messages and interpreter issues: No error. The trial court correctly avoided admitting written translations that might overweight a particular meaning, used a certified interpreter who flagged ambiguous terms, and allowed the recipient-witness (fluent in the relevant dialect) to explain her understanding, subject to cross-examination.

Finding no nonfrivolous issues, the Supreme Court affirmed. The motion to withdraw was declared moot upon affirmance.

Factual Background and Procedural Posture

The offenses arose from a November 29, 2022 incident at a Seaford apartment shared by the Child’s mother (Yolanda Niz‑Chilel), the appellant, his former significant other (Von Marie Hernandez‑Ramirez), and appellant’s brother. While the Child’s mother and Hernandez‑Ramirez were at work, the Child—approximately 22 months old—was in the appellant’s care. That afternoon, appellant and Hernandez‑Ramirez took the Child to Nanticoke Hospital. She presented critically ill, with gastric contents and blood from her nose and mouth and a rigid, distended abdomen. She was diagnosed with a bowel perforation, airlifted to Nemours Children’s Hospital, and underwent emergency surgery to repair a life‑threatening laceration in the anterior stomach wall and other internal injuries.

Appellant told investigators the Child had spilled yogurt; he put her in a bathtub, briefly left, heard a noise, and found her face‑down. He moved her to a bed, pressed her abdomen, she vomited water, and he transported her to the hospital. Expert physicians from Nemours testified that the injuries reflected a substantial focal blow to the abdomen, were not consistent with a bathtub fall, and were not known to result from CPR. A jury convicted the appellant of first‑degree child abuse (11 Del. C. § 1103B) and endangering the welfare of a child (11 Del. C. § 1102).

On direct appeal, defense counsel filed a Rule 26(c) brief and motion to withdraw. The appellant submitted his own points, which the Court considered along with the State’s response.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (1988); Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988): These cases anchor the Rule 26(c) framework. Counsel must conduct a conscientious review and identify any arguably appealable issues or explain their absence; the appellate court must independently review the record to ensure the appeal is not merely dismissed perfunctorily. The Delaware Supreme Court explicitly invoked this standard, confirming counsel’s diligence and performing its own search for nonfrivolous issues before affirming.
Brown v. State, 897 A.2d 748 (Del. 2006): Brown supports the Court’s refusal to find plain error from the trial court’s failure to sua sponte give a missing‑evidence instruction. Since appellant neither moved for such an instruction nor demonstrated favorable content from any hospital‑arrival video, Brown’s reasoning foreclosed relief.
Tisinger v. State, 2025 WL 2047466 (Del. July 22, 2025): Cited for the proposition that claims of withheld information raised for the first time on appeal are reviewed for plain error. The Court used this lens to reject appellant’s undisclosed‑records theories (e.g., second phone line).
Williamson v. State, 113 A.3d 155 (Del. 2015): Establishes that failure to move for judgment of acquittal forfeits a sufficiency challenge, triggering plain‑error review on appeal. The Court applied Williamson to deny appellant’s sufficiency claim.
Zutz v. State, 160 A.2d 727 (Del. 1960); Romeo v. State, 2011 WL 1877845 (Del. May 13, 2011) (TABLE); Knight v. State, 690 A.2d 929 (Del. 1996): These decisions reaffirm that contradictions in testimony present credibility questions for the jury, which serves as the sole arbiter of witness credibility and conflicts in evidence. The Court relied on this line to reject appellant’s arguments about alleged inconsistencies concerning timing or causation.
Diaz v. State, 743 A.2d 1166 (Del. 1999): Diaz underscores the importance of ensuring accurate translations when admitting English interpretations of non‑English statements. Here, the Court cited Diaz while approving the trial court’s approach of not admitting written translations where meaning was variable and instead relying on a certified interpreter and the witness’s own understanding.
Court Interpreters Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1(A)-(C), Admin. Directive No. 107 (Del. 1996): The Code requires interpreters to avoid characterizing testimony and to alert the court when terms are unclear or may confuse. The interpreter did precisely that at trial, prompting the court’s measured handling of ambiguous Spanish phrases.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three tightly connected steps: preservation, plain error, and evidentiary fairness grounded in context-sensitive procedures.

Preservation and waiver. The Court enforced Delaware’s preservation rules rigorously. Claims not raised below—missing‑evidence instruction, sufficiency without a motion for acquittal, investigative choices—were reviewed only for plain error. The “missing photographs” issue was deemed waived because defense counsel strategically told the court she did not intend to “get into” the fact that the photos were missing. This waiver doctrine prevents sandbagging and respects trial strategy choices, even if a defendant later attempts to pivot on appeal.
Plain error across unpreserved claims. Applying Brown, Williamson, and related cases, the Court required an error to be clear and prejudicial to the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. The appellant’s suggestions about uncollected hospital video and second phone records failed to show materiality or favorability. By contrast, the trial record contained consistent medical testimony of severe inflicted trauma (a focal abdominal blow) not consistent with the bathtub narrative or CPR, coupled with appellant’s uncontested role as caregiver. Any minor discrepancies in timing estimates were the jury’s province.
Translation/interpretation of multilingual text messages. The Court endorsed a practically sound and legally compliant approach:
- Do not admit written translations that could lend undue weight to a single interpretation where an idiom has multiple meanings across dialects.
- Use a certified court interpreter who alerts the court to ambiguity or dialectal variants.
- Let the recipient of the messages testify to her understanding of the phrase in context and dialect (here, Puerto Rican Spanish), subject to cross‑examination.
This balances Diaz’s accuracy concerns with the Interpreter Code’s caution against interpreters “characterizing” testimony. It properly leaves meaning to the factfinder based on the witness’s context-specific understanding rather than the interpreter’s gloss.

Impact and Practice Implications

1) Handling multilingual text messages with regional idioms

The decision offers a procedural template likely to guide Delaware trial courts:

When a translation is contested because a term has different meanings across dialects (e.g., “romperle la cara,” “pescozón,” “majadero”), courts should avoid admitting a single written translation that may ossify one meaning.
The certified interpreter should flag ambiguity and, if necessary, request clarification, but should not opine or characterize the testimony.
The best evidence of meaning is testimony from the participants—the sender and/or recipient—about what they intended and understood in their shared dialect and context. That testimony is then tested on cross‑examination.

Expect more frequent use of this witness‑centric approach in cases involving slang and idiomatic speech in non‑English communications, especially where literal translations risk misinterpretation.

2) Preservation discipline in Anders/Rule 26(c) appeals

The Court’s application of strict preservation rules in a Rule 26(c) posture signals that Anders‑type review is not a relaxation of ordinary appellate standards. Unpreserved issues will meet the same high bar for plain error, and strategic trial choices will constitute waiver. Practitioners should:

Move for judgment of acquittal to preserve sufficiency challenges.
Request a missing‑evidence instruction where appropriate and make a record of the evidence’s existence, materiality, and likely favorability.
Litigate interpreter/translation disputes pretrial and at trial, creating a clear record of dialectal differences, proposed alternatives, and the basis for excluding or limiting written translations.
Document investigative leads and their relevance (e.g., additional phone lines), and seek discovery or court orders that concretely frame any later appellate claims.

3) Investigative omissions and lost digital items

Although the Court did not invoke federal due‑process doctrines (California v. Trombetta; Arizona v. Youngblood), its analysis is consistent with those principles: absent a showing that the State suppressed material exculpatory evidence or acted in bad faith with respect to potentially useful evidence, the failure to collect or the loss of an item typically does not warrant relief—particularly under plain‑error review. Here, the appellant neither established that hospital‑arrival video existed nor demonstrated favorability; likewise, the missing photographs issue was waived and, in any event, the jury heard that appellant had shared positive photos.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 26(c) (Delaware) / Anders Review: If appellate counsel believes there are no nonfrivolous issues, they file a brief explaining that view and move to withdraw. The appellate court must independently review the record to ensure the appeal lacks arguable issues before allowing withdrawal and affirming.
Plain Error: A narrow appellate doctrine allowing review of unpreserved errors. The mistake must be obvious on the face of the record and so prejudicial that it undermines the fairness and integrity of the trial.
Missing‑Evidence Instruction: A jury instruction that permits an adverse inference against a party that fails to produce evidence within its control if certain predicates are met. Courts do not give it sua sponte; it must be requested and justified.
Waiver vs. Forfeiture: Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right (e.g., strategic choice at trial), while forfeiture is a failure to preserve an issue through inaction. Waived issues generally cannot be revived on appeal.
Interpreter’s Role vs. Witness’s Meaning: An interpreter translates; a witness supplies meaning and intent. Where words have multiple meanings, the interpreter alerts the court, and the witness explains what they meant or understood; the jury decides.
Sufficiency of the Evidence: A challenge claiming the State’s proof was inadequate to allow a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In Delaware, failing to move for judgment of acquittal at trial means the issue is unpreserved and reviewed only for plain error.
Child Abuse and Endangering Statutes: 11 Del. C. § 1103B criminalizes recklessly or intentionally causing serious physical injury to a child through abuse or neglect. 11 Del. C. § 1102 criminalizes conduct likely to injure a child’s welfare and enhances the offense when serious physical injury results.

Key Takeaways and Significance

Interpreter and Translation Protocol: The Court effectively sets a best‑practice template for multilingual message interpretation in criminal trials: avoid potentially overweighting a single written translation when idioms are dialect‑dependent; rely on a certified interpreter to surface ambiguity; let the witness explain the intended meaning. This aligns with Diaz and the Interpreter Code and will likely be cited in future evidentiary rulings involving slang, idioms, and regional variation.
Rigid Preservation Expectations in Anders Context: Even in a Rule 26(c) appeal, the Court applies standard preservation rules and a demanding plain‑error threshold. Defendants and counsel must create a record at trial for later appellate review.
Uncollected or Lost Evidence Claims Require Concrete Showings: Without proof of existence, control, favorability, and prejudice (and, in due‑process terms, bad faith for potentially useful evidence), such claims will typically fail—especially if not raised below.
Jury’s Province on Credibility: Perennial reaffirmation: minor inconsistencies and credibility disputes are for jurors, not appellate courts, to resolve.
Medical Expert Testimony Carries Significant Weight: Thorough, consistent expert testimony can sustain the State’s theory of inflicted injury, overcoming alternative narratives that lack evidentiary support.

Conclusion

Muniz‑Rodriguez v. State is an Anders/Rule 26(c) affirmance that nonetheless offers meaningful guidance on trial management and appellate preservation. Practically, it crystallizes a measured approach to multilingual text‑message evidence: eschew written translations that may ossify a single meaning when dialects diverge, use certified interpreters to surface ambiguity without editorializing, and elicit the witness’s understanding for the jury’s consideration. Doctrinally, it underscores that even in an Anders posture, Delaware’s Supreme Court will rigorously enforce preservation rules and apply searching plain‑error review, rejecting unpreserved or waived claims absent clear, outcome‑affecting error. For practitioners, the decision is a reminder to build the record deliberately—on translations, missing‑evidence contentions, and sufficiency—to ensure that any appellate claim is both preserved and meritorious.