Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 221, § 92 (2026)

Appointment of interpreters; compensation

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 92. The justices of the superior court may appoint such official interpreters as they may deem necessary for the sessions of the court. Such interpreters shall hold their positions at the pleasure of the court, shall be paid by the commonwealth, and shall render such additional service as any justice of the court requires. No official interpreter shall request or receive, directly or indirectly, any gratuity, bonus or fee, in connection with any case pending, or in course of preparation for presentation to said court; provided, that upon request of the district attorney such interpreter may, in the discretion of the court, receive additional compensation from the county for his services as an interpreter at such hours or times as the courts are not in session, which shall be paid under section twenty-four of chapter twelve.

This section shall not prevent the justices from employing other interpreters when the services of the official interpreters are not available. Such expenses incurred shall be paid by the commonwealth.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Belete, 640 N.E.2d 511 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Belete, 640 N.E.2d 511 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994). “Our conclusion is buttressed by the fact that G. L. c. 221, § 92, which authorizes the appointment of an official interpreter in court proceedings, does not require either an oath or affirmation.”

Commonwealth v. Lee (Mass. 2019). · cites it 7× “" On April 5, 2016, the judge found Cantonese interpreter Stephanie Liu (Liu) to be qualified to interpret pursuant to G. L. c. 221, § 92, and Mass. R. Crim. P.”

Lee v. Alves (D. Mass. 2024). · cites it 2× “221C, §§ 1-2; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 221, § 92 ). The SJC then reviewed the trial judge’s factual findings for abuse of discretion.”

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.