Opinion ID: 1470079
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Court-Appointed Interpreter

Text: Finally, the trial justice's decision to allow an interpreter who was not certified was not error. Before trial, defense counsel objected to the qualification of the court interpreter and questioned the certification procedure for court-employed interpreters. The trial justice permitted voir dire examination of the interpreter's qualifications and defendant failed to impeach the interpreter's qualifications. Significantly, defendant has failed to show that she was prejudiced by the interpreter services that were provided to her. Court interpreters are provided pursuant to G.L.1956 chapter 19 of title 8. This statute was enacted: [T]o guarantee the rights of persons who, because of non-English speaking background, are unable to readily understand or communicate in the English language, and who consequently need the assistance of an interpreter [to] be fully protected in legal proceedings in criminal matters   . Section 8-19-1. This statute furthers the state's goal of providing meaningful access to criminal legal proceedings for all people who come before the courts; it does not provide a basis for a finding of reversible error absent a showing of actual, irremediable prejudice. Although the United States Supreme Court has not recognized a constitutional right to a court-appointed interpreter, this Court has held that a trial justice is entrusted with the discretion to appoint an interpreter if he or she determines that a defendant is unable to understand the English language adequately   . State v. Ibrahim, 862 A.2d 787, 797, 798 (R.I.2004). We have long held that a trial justice is granted large discretion in the selection, appointment, and retention of an interpreter. State v. Deslovers, 40 R.I. 89, 115, 100 A. 64, 73 (1917). Unless the complaining party provides clear evidence of prejudice, we will not disturb the trial justice's discretion. Id. Because the defendant has failed to show that she was prejudiced in any cognizable way by the interpreter that the court provided for her, we reject this argument.