O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 24-6-654 (2019)

Indigent hearing impaired defendants to be provided with interpreters

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A court shall provide a court qualified interpreter to any hearing impaired person whenever the hearing impaired person has been provided with a public defender or court appointed legal counsel. (b) The court qualified interpreter authorized by this Code section shall be present at all times when the hearing impaired person is consulting with legal counsel.

History

Code 1981, § 24-6-654, 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 the appellant with adequate hearing assistance during the trial nor was trial counsel ineffective for failing to arrange adequate hearing assistance during the trial because the record reflected that the appellant did not

request the 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).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-108 are in-

cluded in the annotations for this Code section. Expenditure for interpreter for in-

digent criminal defendant. - When the superior court exercises the court’s discretion to appoint an interpreter for an indigent criminal defendant who neither speaks nor understands English, the court

has inherent power to assess the cost of the interpreter against the county. 1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U89-24 (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-108).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2018–2018 · leading case: In the Interest of K. G., a Child, 811 S.E.2d 451 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
In the Interest of K. G., a Child, 811 S.E.2d 451 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 24-6-654 (a). At a July 22, 2016, hearing (at which two interpreters were present) the mother's counsel moved for a continuance on the ground that she and the mother had only had an hour to discuss the case with an interpreter present.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.