Opinion ID: 835001
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Oregon Statutes

Text: The parties agree that the trial court excused at least one prospective juror, Montesinos, because his proficiency in English was insufficient for him serve as a juror without an interpreter, and the court had declined to appoint an interpreter for him. [6] Defendant argues that Oregon lawspecifically, ORS 45.275 and ORS 45.273requires the state to provide interpreters for prospective jurors who could serve but for their lack of proficiency in English. For the reasons that follow, we disagree with defendant's interpretation of those provisions. ORS 45.275 provides, in part: The court shall appoint a qualified interpreter in a civil or criminal proceeding, and a hearing officer or the designee of a hearing officer shall appoint a qualified interpreter in an adjudicatory proceeding, whenever it is necessary: (a) To interpret the proceedings to a non-English-speaking party; (b) To interpret the testimony of a non-English-speaking party or witness; or (c) To assist the court, agency or hearing officer in performing the duties and responsibilities of the court, agency or hearing officer. Defendant also relies on ORS 45.273, which sets out the legislature's policy for creating procedures for the qualification and use of court interpreters. ORS 45.273(1) provides: It is declared to be the policy of this state to secure the constitutional rights and other rights of persons who are unable to readily understand or communicate in the English language because of a non-English-speaking cultural background or a disability, and who as a result cannot be fully protected in administrative and court proceedings unless qualified interpreters are available to provide assistance. Nothing in the text of ORS 45.273 either authorizes or requires the provision of interpreters for non-English speakers. Rather, that statute is a general statement of a policy to protect the constitutional and other rights of persons who are not proficient in English in administrative and court proceedings. That general statement is implemented by the specific provisions in ORS 45.275 and ORS 45.285 for the appointment of an interpreter for a non-English-speaking party in a civil or criminal case, a non-English-speaking witness, or a witness who cannot communicate because of a physical hearing or speaking impairment. See ORS 45.275(1)(a), (b); ORS 45.285(1)(c), (2) (so providing). Apparently recognizing the absence of any specific statute regarding non-English-speaking jurors or prospective jurors, defendant argues that ORS 45.275(1)(c) requires the appointment of an interpreter for such a person. Paragraph (c), however, provides for the appointment of an interpreter to assist the court, agency or hearing officer in performing their official duties. It does not mention the appointment of an interpreter to assist prospective jurors. Even assuming, without deciding, that ORS 45.275(1)(c) would authorize a trial court to appoint an interpreter for a non-English-speaking juror because that appointment would assist the court, the statute nevertheless does not require the trial court to make such an appointment. Nothing in the statutes cited by defendant suggests that the trial court may not respond to the potential difficulties of seating a non-English-speaking juror by excusing that juror. Indeed, ORS 10.050(2) specifically provides that the trial court may excuse a juror whose presence on the jury would substantially impair the progress of the action on trial   . We conclude that the trial court's decision not to provide an interpreter for a non-English-speaking prospective juror, and its subsequent decision to exclude the prospective juror because he was unable to participate at trial without an interpreter, did not violate Oregon statutes.