Avila

Defendant appeals from a judgment of imprisonment pronounced upon his conviction of the crime of statutory rape.

[1] The victim of the crime was a thirteen year old girl, who testified to the act of intercourse. For the purpose of corroborating her testimony, an aunt, Mary Foster, was called as a witness on behalf of the state. This witness, during her examination, repeatedly asked that she be accorded an interpreter, stating that she did not understand the questions asked her in the English language, which request was by the court denied until the latter part of the cross-examination, when it called an interpreter. Under section 1884 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is made the duty of the court to appoint an interpreter in those cases only where the witness does not understand or speak the English language. In each case the question is one for the judicial determination of the trial court; its ruling .thereon will not be disturbed unless the record clearly shows an abuse of discretion. (People v. Young, 108 Cal. 8 , [ 41 Pac. 281 ]; People v. Morine, 138 Cal. 626 , [ 72 Pac. 166 ].) In the instant case, not only did the witness repeatedly state that she did not - understand…