O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 24-6-656 (2019)

Replacement of interpreters unable to communicate accurately with hearing impaired persons; appointment of intermediary 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

Whenever a hearing impaired person shall be authorized to be provided a qualified interpreter, the agency or law enforcement agency shall determine whether the qualified interpreter so provided is able to communicate accurately with and translate information to and from the hearing impaired person. If it is determined that the qualified interpreter cannot perform these functions, the agency or law enforcement agency shall obtain the services of another qualified interpreter or shall appoint an intermediary interpreter to assist the qualified interpreter in communicating with the hearing impaired person.

History

Code 1981, § 24-6-656, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Waiver. - Trial court did not err by admitting into evidence a statement defendant gave after the defendant had been arrested and was in custody because the interpreter’s involvement in the interview was harmless as the defendant waived the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 24-6-656 when the defendant and counsel required the follow-up meeting, the written state-

ment defendant gave was not translated by the interpreter, both the defendant and counsel clearly stated that the defendant wanted to give the statement, and it was plain from the video recording that the statement was freely and voluntarily made. Harris v. State, 307 Ga. 657, 837 S.E.2d 777, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 4 (2020).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2020–2020 · leading case: Harris v. State, 837 S.E.2d 777 (Ga. 2020).
Harris v. State, 837 S.E.2d 777 (Ga. 2020). · cites it 2× “9 OCGA § 24-6-656 provides: Whenever a hearing impaired person shall be authorized to 20 this statement should have been suppressed.”
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.