What are the grounds on which to argue that a witness has to cross-examine the witness using only a Spanish interpreter?

Initially, we note that these arguments are largely being advanced for the first time. With the possible exception of the cross-examination ground ("I can't cross-examine him using only a Spanish interpreter"), none of the grounds now urged was advanced to the trial court. They consequently cannot be put forward for the first time on appeal. (People v. Abel (2012) 53 Cal.4th 891, 924.) As for the court's supposed failure to question the witness, that seems academic because the need for an interpreter was accepted by all concerned from the outset.