Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2311
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2311.14 (2026)

Interpreter provided for person with hearing, speech or other impediment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
October 12, 2016
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 158 - 131st General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A)(1) Whenever because of a hearing, speech, or other impairment a party to or witness in a legal proceeding cannot readily understand or communicate, the court shall appoint a qualified interpreter to assist such person.

(2) This section is not limited to a person who speaks a language other than English. It also applies to the language and descriptions of any person with a developmental disability who cannot be reasonably understood, or who cannot understand questioning, without the aid of an interpreter. The interpreter may aid the parties in formulating methods of questioning the person with a developmental disability and in interpreting the answers of the person.

(B) Before entering upon official duties, the interpreter shall take an oath that the interpreter will make a true interpretation of the proceedings to the party or witness, and that the interpreter will truly repeat the statements made by such party or witness to the court, to the best of the interpreter's ability. If the interpreter is appointed to assist a person with a developmental disability as described in division (A)(2) of this section, the oath also shall include an oath that the interpreter will not prompt, lead, suggest, or otherwise improperly influence the testimony of the witness or party.

(C) The court shall determine a reasonable fee for all such interpreter service which shall be paid out of the same funds as witness fees. If the party taxed with costs is indigent, the court shall not tax the interpreter's fees as costs, and the county or, if the court is a municipal court that is not a county-operated municipal court, the municipal corporation in which the court is located shall pay the interpreter's fees.

(D) As used in this section, " developmental disability" has the same meaning as in section 5123.01 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: State v. G.C., 2016 Ohio 717 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. G.C., 2016 Ohio 717 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “{¶ 18} R.C. 2311.14 and Sup.R. 88 set forth the circumstances under which the appointment of a foreign language interpreter is mandated.”
State v. Barrie, 2016 Ohio 5640 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “) However, neither R.C. 2311.14 nor the Rules of Superintendence require that a court continue a trial until a certified interpreter can be appointed.”
State v. Benitez-Maranon, 2014 Ohio 3575 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “He also argues that the trial court committed plain error in failing to expressly qualify the interpreter pursuant to R.C. 2311.14(A). However, Mr. Benitez-Maranon has not pointed to anything in the record or to legal authority that suggests that R.”
State v. Akladyous, 2023 Ohio 3105 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “R 604, and R.C. 2311.14(B). {¶ 25} The first rule cited by Akladyous, Sup.”
State v. Noor, 2014 Ohio 3397 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “{¶ 67} Appellant contends that the trial court failed to comply with either R.C. 2311.14 or Sup.R. 88(D). He further argues that Crim.”
State v. Kamleh, 2012 Ohio 2061 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “” {¶54} R.C. 2311.14(A)(1) states that the court shall appoint an interpreter whenever a person “cannot readily understand or communicate” in a legal proceeding.”
State v. Gegia, 809 N.E.2d 673 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “We have consolidated some of appellant’s assignments of error to facilitate review: II Assignment of Error Number One “The trial court erred when it failed to appoint an interpreter pursuant to R.C. 2311.14 when it became apparent that the defendant could not readily understand…”
State v. Cedeno-Guerrero, 2019 Ohio 4580 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “R.C. 2311.14, Evid.R. 604, and Sup.R. 88 govern the appointment of and certification requirements for foreign language interpreters.”
State v. Razo, 812 N.E.2d 1005 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “14 provides for appointment of an interpreter if a party cannot readily understand the proceedings: “(A) Whenever because of a hearing, speech, or other impairment a party to or witness in a legal proceeding cannot readily understand or communicate, the court shall appoint a…”
In re M.A., 2021 Ohio 1078 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “) {¶ 30} While mother and her counsel indicated to the court at the hearings following the magistrate's May 2, 2019 decision that mother would like an interpreter, mother never moved the court for the mandatory appointment of an interpreter pursuant to R.C. 2311.14 and Sup.R.…”
State v. Bravo, 2017 Ohio 272 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “14 in effect stated in relevant part: (A)(1) Whenever because of a hearing, speech, or other impairment a party to or witness in a legal proceeding cannot readily understand or communicate, the court shall appoint a qualified interpreter to assist such person.”
In re Marriage of Beynenson, 2013 Ohio 341 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “{¶16} As the court in Lopez-Antonio noted, neither R.C. 2311.14 nor any other provision of the Ohio Revised Code provides guidance regarding how to determine whether an interpreter is qualified; nor does Ohio case law provide much direction other than to reiterate that…”
Show all 56 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2311.14(A) — 13 cases
State v. Benitez-Maranon, 2014 Ohio 3575 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “He also argues that the trial court committed plain error in failing to expressly qualify the interpreter pursuant to R.C. 2311.14(A). However, Mr. Benitez-Maranon has not pointed to anything in the record or to legal authority that suggests that R.”
State v. Gegia, 809 N.E.2d 673 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). “We have consolidated some of appellant’s assignments of error to facilitate review: II Assignment of Error Number One “The trial court erred when it failed to appoint an interpreter pursuant to R.C. 2311.14 when it became apparent that the defendant could not readily understand…”
State v. Barrie, 2016 Ohio 5640 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “) However, neither R.C. 2311.14 nor the Rules of Superintendence require that a court continue a trial until a certified interpreter can be appointed.”
State v. Flores-Lopez, 2017 Ohio 690 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Saah, 585 N.E.2d 999 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2311.14(A)(1) — 27 cases
State v. Kamleh, 2012 Ohio 2061 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “” {¶54} R.C. 2311.14(A)(1) states that the court shall appoint an interpreter whenever a person “cannot readily understand or communicate” in a legal proceeding.”
State v. G.C., 2016 Ohio 717 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “{¶ 18} R.C. 2311.14 and Sup.R. 88 set forth the circumstances under which the appointment of a foreign language interpreter is mandated.”
In re M.A., 2021 Ohio 1078 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “) {¶ 30} While mother and her counsel indicated to the court at the hearings following the magistrate's May 2, 2019 decision that mother would like an interpreter, mother never moved the court for the mandatory appointment of an interpreter pursuant to R.C. 2311.14 and Sup.R.…”
In re Marriage of Beynenson, 2013 Ohio 341 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “{¶16} As the court in Lopez-Antonio noted, neither R.C. 2311.14 nor any other provision of the Ohio Revised Code provides guidance regarding how to determine whether an interpreter is qualified; nor does Ohio case law provide much direction other than to reiterate that…”
State v. Noor, 2014 Ohio 3397 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶ 67} Appellant contends that the trial court failed to comply with either R.C. 2311.14 or Sup.R. 88(D). He further argues that Crim.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2311.14(A)(2) — 1 case
State v. McNeill, 2018 Ohio 2659 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2311.14(B) — 15 cases
State v. Akladyous, 2023 Ohio 3105 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “R 604, and R.C. 2311.14(B). {¶ 25} The first rule cited by Akladyous, Sup.”
State v. Barrie, 2016 Ohio 5640 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “) However, neither R.C. 2311.14 nor the Rules of Superintendence require that a court continue a trial until a certified interpreter can be appointed.”
State v. Benitez-Maranon, 2014 Ohio 3575 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “He also argues that the trial court committed plain error in failing to expressly qualify the interpreter pursuant to R.C. 2311.14(A). However, Mr. Benitez-Maranon has not pointed to anything in the record or to legal authority that suggests that R.”
State v. Rosa, 547 N.E.2d 1232 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Noor, 2014 Ohio 3397 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶ 67} Appellant contends that the trial court failed to comply with either R.C. 2311.14 or Sup.R. 88(D). He further argues that Crim.”
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.