THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
775.19a Appointment of interpreter; compensation.
Sec. 19a.
If an accused person is about to be examined or tried and it appears to the judge that the person is incapable of adequately understanding the charge or presenting a defense to the charge because of a lack of ability to understand or speak the English language, the inability to adequately communicate by reason of being mute, or because the person suffers from a speech defect or other physical defect which impairs the person in maintaining his or her rights in the case, the judge shall appoint a qualified person to act as an interpreter. Except as provided in the deaf persons' interpreter act, the interpreter shall be compensated for his or her services in the same amount and manner as is provided for interpreters in section 19 of this chapter.
History: Add. 1955, Act 27, Imd. Eff. Apr. 13, 1955 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 506, Imd. Eff. Jan. 22, 1981 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 203, Imd. Eff. July 1, 1982 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 49, Imd. Eff. Mar. 30, 1998
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case:
People v. Gonzalez-Raymundo, 862 N.W.2d 657 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
People v. Gonzalez-Raymundo, 862 N.W.2d 657 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 5× “Defense counsel, at the Ginther hearing, stopped well short of indicating that defendant made a personal and informed decision to waive his right to an interpreter, saying only that “this was the strategy I recommended to him and he went along with it to the point that I don’t…”
People v. Warren, 504 N.W.2d 907 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“MCL 775.19a; MSA 28.1256(1) directs a judge to appoint an interpreter for an accused person if that person is about to be examined or tried and it appears that the person is incapable of adequately understanding the charge or presenting a defense to the charge because of the…”
Gonzalez v. Phillips, 147 F. Supp. 2d 791 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
· cites it 2× “§ 775.19a and stating that “[njotwithstanding the failure of the defendant to request an interpreter, it was error to fail to appoint an interpreter where the record clearly shows that the defendant spoke no English whatsoever”).”
People v. Atsilis, 231 N.W.2d 534 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
“MCLA 775.19a; MSA 28.1256(1), Perovich v United States, 205 US 86 ; 27 S Ct 456 ; 51 L Ed 722 (1907).”
People v. Sepulveda, 302 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“The question of whether or not to provide an *779 interpreter under MCL 775.19a; MSA 28.1256(1) is within the trial court’s discretion.”
People of Michigan v. Juan Carlos Rodriguez (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 6× “HEARSAY EVIDENCE Rodriguez argues next that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting his statements, as testified about by Officer Gasca and Detective Araujo, because the officers acted as his interpreters under MCL 775.19a, and he did not adopt their translations of…”
People of Michigan v. Hieu Van Hoang (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “RIGHT TO AN INTERPRETER UNDER MCL 775.19a AND MCR 1.111 MCL 775.19a provides the standard upon which trial courts must appoint an interpreter: If an accused person is about to be examined or tried and it appears to the judge that the person is incapable of adequately…”
People of Michigan v. Zdzislaw Gnat (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “On appeal, defendant argues that both his constitutional due process rights and his statutory rights under MCL 775.19a were violated because the trial court failed to appoint an interpreter after defendant indicated that he sometimes did not understand the court proceedings and…”
People of Michigan v. Wei Dong (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“19a, which provides, in relevant part: If an accused person is about to be examined or tried and it appears to the judge that the person is incapable of adequately understanding the charge or presenting a defense to the charge because of a lack of ability to understand or speak…”
Lahdir v. Christiansen (E.D. Mich. 2021).
“This right is “not merely statutory as codified by MCL 775.19a, but constitutional, and thus subject to every reasonable presumption against its loss.”
In Re Guardianship of Drrr (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“111, as well as MCL 775.19a, which specifically applies to the appointment of interpreters in criminal proceedings.”
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.