Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title I Chapter 221
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 221, § 92A (2026)

Interpreters for the deaf or hearing-impaired; court proceedings; arrests; admissibility of evidence; fees and expenses; privileged communications

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 92A. In any proceeding in any court in which a deaf or hearing-impaired person is a party or a witness, or proceeding involves a juvenile whose parent, or parents, is deaf or hearing-impaired, or in any proceeding before an executive or legislative board, commission, agency, bureau committee or other body of the state or political subdivisions involving a hearing-impaired person, such court or body shall appoint a qualified interpreter to interpret the proceedings, unless such deaf or hearing-impaired person knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waives, in writing the appointment of such interpreter. Such waiver is subject to the written approval of counsel where such deaf or hearing-impaired person is being represented by counsel. In no event shall the failure of the deaf or hearing-impaired person to request an interpreter be deemed a waiver of such appointment.

Whenever a deaf or hearing-impaired person is arrested for an alleged violation of a criminal law, including a local ordinance, the arresting officer shall procure and arrange payment for a qualified interpreter to assist such person regarding any interrogation, warning, notification of rights, or taking of a statement. No answer, statement, or admission, written or oral, made by a deaf or hearing-impaired person in response to any question by a law enforcement officer or any prosecutor, in his official capacity, in any criminal proceeding may be used against such deaf or hearing-impaired person unless such statement was made or elicited through a qualified interpreter and was made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently or, in the case of waiver of interpreter, unless the court makes a special finding that any statement made by such deaf or hearing-impaired person was made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. In any criminal proceeding wherein counsel has been appointed to represent an indigent defendant, the court shall also appoint a qualified interpreter for such defendant, whenever such defendant is deaf or hearing-impaired to assist in communication with counsel in all phases of the preparation and presentation of the case.

In all proceedings involving an interpreter under this section, no testimony shall be admitted as evidence until: (1) the interpreter is so situated as to assure effective communication between all persons having a substantial interest in the outcome of such proceedings,

(2) the interpreter swears under oath, that he will provide a true and accurate interpretation of the proceedings to the best of his skill and judgment, and

(3) the person conducting such proceedings determines, on the basis of testimony of the interpreter and the deaf or hearing-impaired person, that such interpreter is able in that particular proceeding, to communicate accurately with and translate information to and from such deaf or hearing-impaired person involved.

If, at any time during the proceeding, it is determined that the interpreter is no longer able to provide effective communication between the parties, the person conducting such proceeding shall appoint another qualified interpreter or an intermediary interpreter in accordance with the provisions of this section.

For the purposes of this section, the following words shall have the following meanings:—

''Intermediary interpreter'', a person who, because of an intimate acquaintance with deaf or hearing-impaired persons who use mainly natural or unusual gestures for communicating, can act as a mediator between the hearing-impaired person and the qualified interpreter.

''Qualified interpreter'', a person skilled in sign language or oral interpretation and transliteration, has the ability to communicate accurately with a deaf or hearing-impaired person and is able to translate information to and from such hearing-impaired person, an interpreter shall be deemed qualified or intermediary as determined by the Office of Deafness, based upon the recommendations of the Massachusetts Registry of the Deaf, the Massachusetts State Association of the Deaf and other appropriate agencies. Said office of deafness shall coordinate all requests for qualified interpreters and shall maintain a list of all such interpreters from which it shall fill such requests.

An interpreter appointed pursuant to this section or section sixty-nine of chapter two hundred and thirty-four A, shall be reimbursed a reasonable fee by the commonwealth for his services, pursuant to a fee schedule established and promulgated by the chief administrative judge. Said schedule shall be based upon recommendations of the commission for the deaf and hard of hearing, established pursuant to the provisions of section one hundred and ninety-two of chapter six, the Massachusetts Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, the Massachusetts State Association of the Deaf, and other appropriate agencies. Reimbursement for actual travel and ordinary living expenses shall be at the rates provided for employees of the commonwealth.

A client has a privilege to prevent a certified sign language interpreter from disclosing a confidential communication between one or more persons where the communication was facilitated by said interpreter. For purposes of this paragraph a client is a person rendered interpreting services by an interpreter; a communication is confidential if a client has a reasonable expectation or intent that it not be disclosed to persons other than those to whom such disclosure is made.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any department, board, commission, agency or licensing authority from employing a qualified interpreter, who is recommended by the office of deafness, on a full-time basis or under contract at a mutually agreed upon compensation rate.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Elliott, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 520 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Elliott, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 520 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 6× “The defendant argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial judge failed to ensure that his hearing difficulties were adequately accommodated, thereby violating his State and Federal constitutional rights and his rights under G. L. c. 221, § 92A. For the reasons…”
Commonwealth v. Kelley, 535 N.E.2d 1251 (Mass. 1989). · cites it 2× “He moved to dismiss this and two related charges on the ground that he was denied his statutory right to the assistance of an interpreter in violation of G. L. c. 221, § 92A (1986 ed.), with the result, he asserted, that he was not adequately informed of his right under G.”
McDonough, 930 N.E.2d 1279 (Mass. 2010). “, G. L. c. 221, § 92A (court must appoint “qualified interpreter” in “any proceeding” in which “deaf or hearing-impaired person is a party or a witness”), because of the absence of adequate existing guidance in this important area, we also exercise our superintendence power to…”
Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 507 N.E.2d 694 (Mass. 1987). “See G. L. c. 221, § 92A (1984 ed.). 4 Defense counsel in final argument said, “[The defendant] was there .”
Commonwealth v. Tingley, 594 N.E.2d 546 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992). “However, in an abundance of caution and in light of the passage of time between those findings and any retrial, we think that the defendant should be allowed to show whether his hearing impairment, if any, has so worsened that he has need for the appointment of an interpreter…”
Commonwealth v. Ardon, 702 N.E.2d 808 (Mass. 1998). “The defendant suggests that a rule requiring the right to an independent interpreter for non-English speaking suspects is analogous to the legislative enactment of G. L. c. 221, § 92A (providing, in part, that absent written waiver shown to be knowing and voluntary, no statement…”
In re a Grand Jury Subpoena, 722 N.E.2d 450 (Mass. 2000). “112, § 172 (mental health or human services professional); G. L. c. 221, § 92A (sign language interpreter); G.”
Commonwealth v. Alves, 625 N.E.2d 559 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993). “We know of no authority, and the defendant cites none, which would require police to produce an independent interpreter when questioning a non-English speaking defendant prior to trial.”
Commonwealth v. Sammy Lozada (Mass. 2025). · cites it 9× “No determination regarding the appropriateness of these interpreters in view of Samot's severe communication challenges was made as required by G. L. c. 221, § 92A (§ 92A or statute). Specifically, the statute mandates that "no testimony shall be admitted as evidence until" the…”
Commonwealth v. Raymond C. Horsley. (Mass. App. Ct. 2026). “" G. L. c. 221, § 92A. See Commonwealth v. Elliott, 87 Mass.”
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.