Opinion ID: 1992657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Due Process/Interpreter Issue

Text: Ms. Esteves argues that her due process rights were violated when the trial court failed to inquire as to whether she needed an interpreter. Under our law an interpreter may be appointed for a communication-impaired person. See D.C.Code § 31-2701 (1993 Repl.) [8] The statute defines a communication-impaired person as a person whose hearing is impaired or who does not speak English. D.C.Code § 31-2701(2). A non-English speaking person is defined as one who is unable to readily understand oral and written communications in the English language or who cannot communicate effectively in the spoken English language. D.C.Code § 31-2701(4). The record on appeal reveals that Ms. Esteves could communicate in English. While her English was not perfect, it was good enough to be understood and to make herself understood, even though she claimed she could not read English very well. Indeed, at no time did she advise the trial court that she was not an English-speaking person. After Mr. Esteves' counsel made an argument in support of his motion for judgment, Ms. Esteves said she did not understand some words. Although she may not have understood some words or legal terms, the trial judge's questions were put to her in plain English that she could readily understand; she had no difficulty posing understandable questions to Mr. Esteves; and she readily responded after the judge explained certain questions to her. In short, the trial judge had no reason to make an inquiry regarding Ms. Esteves' ability to communicate in English. Due process expresses the requirement of `fundamental fairness,' Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 24, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 2158, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981), and on the record before us, we cannot conclude that Ms. Esteves was denied fundamental fairness when the trial court failed to inquire as to whether she needed an interpreter.