In Flores v. State, 299 S.W.3d 843, 854 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2009, pet. ref'd), the defendant gave a videotaped confession primarily in Spanish and the State prepared a transcript of a sworn Spanish-to-English translation. Id. At trial, defense counsel objected, arguing the non-Spanish speaking jurors would read the translation as the video played and be unable to correlate the English statements with the context in which the defendant made them. Id. The trial court overruled the objections, and noted both the tape and the transcript would be available during deliberations if the jury needed to watch or read them again. Id. The opinion included the following rationale: "The interpreter's rendition of the Appellant's statement created the only permanent record of what was said. It is as if the non-English language was never spoken before the jury and the interpreter stands in place of the witness. There is in fact no requirement or means available at trial to preserve the original foreign language spoken in court. It is the translation presented by the interpreter that creates the record and that ultimately serves as the basis for any potential appeal. In this case all the jurors should have been focused on the written translation and not on the Spanish audio." Id. at 855-56. The Court explained that because the interpreter was positively identified, qualified, officially sworn, and subjected to cross-examination, the requirements of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 38.30 were met. Id. at 856. The Court did not hold that Article 38.30 was the only method of authenticating such a translation. Id.