Court Opinion

ID: 9754032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:39:34.973082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:47.041656
License: Public Domain

HERRMANN, Justice
(dissenting).
I would reverse on the ground that it was prejudicial error to permit the interpreter, designated as such at the request of the State to translate the testimony of the victim, to testify as a prosecution witness as to the facts of the case.
A person designated and sworn by the Court as the interpreter for the trial becomes part of the Court’s “team” momentarily and is cloaked with officialdom in the eyes of the jury. This interpreter w.as the employer of the victim but had no relationship to the defendants. He was called by the State. It is reasonable to assume that the interpreter’s testimony as to a fact in issue influenced the verdict of the jury prejudicially.
It should be the rule, in my opinion, that the interpreter designated by the Trial Court should be disqualified as a witness, especially in a criminal case tried before a jury.