O.C.G.A. § 24-6-651 (2019)
Definitions
As used in this article, the term:
(1) “Agency” means any agency, authority, board, bureau, committee, commission, court, department, or jury of the legislative, judicial, or executive branch of government of this state or any political subdivision thereof.
(2) “Court qualified interpreter” means any person licensed as an interpreter for the hearing impaired pursuant to Code Section
(3) “Hearing impaired person” means any person whose hearing is totally impaired or whose hearing is so seriously impaired as to prohibit the person from understanding oral communications when spoken in a normal conversational tone.
(4) “Intermediary interpreter” means any person, including any hearing impaired person, who is able to assist in providing an accurate interpretation between spoken English and sign language or between the variance of sign language by acting as an intermediary between a hearing impaired person and a qualified interpreter.
(5) “Proceeding” means any meeting, hearing, trial, investigation, or other proceeding of any nature conducted by an agency.
(6) “Qualified interpreter” means any person certified as an interpreter for hearing impaired persons by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf or a court qualified interpreter.
History
Code 1981, § 24-6-651, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Adequate accommodation for defendant’s hearing loss. - Trial court did not err by not providing appellant with adequate hearing assistance during trial nor was trial counsel ineffective for failing to arrange adequate hearing assistance during trial because the record reflected the appellant did not request assistance of a sign-language interpreter during pre-trial proceedings or at trial and, instead, the trial court provided the appellant with headphones that amplified words spoken into microphones in the courtroom. Birdow v. State, 305 Ga. 48,
823 S.E.2d 736, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 64 (2019). Failure to provide accommodation to hearing impaired criminal defendant. - Defendant’s pornography convictions were upheld because defendant did not establish a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different had he been offered or provided with different or additional services for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Hardy v. State, 363 Ga. App. 734, 872 S.E.2d 511, 2022 Ga. App. LEXIS 213 (2022).