Opinion ID: 3036566
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appointment of an Interpreter

Text: Khehra argues for the first time on appeal that an interpreter should have been appointed for him before trial because his lack of fluency in English hampered his ability to mount an effective defense. The evidence is undisputed that Khehra's native language is the Punjabi dialect. However, Khehra never asked for an interpreter before sentencing, nor did he testify at trial. Khehra's defense counsel stated he had no difficulty communicating with Khehra. His counsel specifically asked Khehra whether he wanted or needed an interpreter for trial. Khehra said he did not. When Khehra requested an interpreter at sentencing, his stated reason was to aid the court in understanding Khehra's testimony, not to aid Khehra's understanding of English. The district court conversed with Khehra to assure that he had a sufficient mastery of English to proceed and determined that he did. Khehra argues that at arraignment the district court was put on notice that he may have difficulties understanding English when authorities requested Khehra surrender his passport, but he was unfamiliar with the concept of a passport. We review a district court's decision to appoint an interpreter for abuse of discretion. United States v. Coronel-Quintana, 752 F.2d 1284, 1291 (8th Cir. 1985); Luna v. Black, 772 F.2d 448, 451 (8th Cir. 1985). Errors not brought to the attention of the district court are reviewed for plain error. United States v. Gonzales, 339 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir. 2003); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Khehra never objected to the failure of the district court to provide an interpreter. We therefore review for plain error and find none. The appointment of an interpreter is placed squarely within the district court's discretion. Quintana, 752 F.2d at 1291; Gonzales, 339 F.3d at 727 (8th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 1827. The district court should base its decision on factors, including the defendant's understanding of the English language and the complexity of the proceedings, issues, and testimony. Quintana, 752 F.2d at 1291. [W]here no request is made for an interpreter and the record shows no need for one in that the defendant -4- has no difficulty in communicating, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by failing to appoint an interpreter. Luna, 772 F.2d at 451; see also Gonzalez-Perez v. Harper, 241 F.3d 633, 637 (8th Cir. 2001). Khehra had lived in the United States for over five years and owned a convenience store in rural Iowa where he had to communicate in English to both customers and vendors. Khehra's defense counsel never asserted that he had any problem communicating with Khehra. Khehra told his counsel that he did not need an interpreter for trial. The tape recordings of the controlled purchases show Khehra conversing with Ben and Dan Hines and Brugman in English. Khehra also communicated with officers during the search of his store. The trial was not complex and Khehra only requested an interpreter at sentencing to assure the court understood him. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the district court committed plain error by failing to appoint an interpreter for Khehra. We affirm the jury's verdict and the sentence of the district court. ______________________________ -5-