2020 Georgia Code
Title 24 - Evidence
Chapter 6 - Witnesses
Article 3 - Use of Sign Language and Intermediary Interpreter in Administrative and Judicial Proceedings
§ 24-6-650. State Policy on Hearing Impaired Persons
It is the policy of the State of Georgia to secure the rights of hearing impaired persons who, because of impaired hearing, cannot readily understand or communicate in spoken language and who consequently cannot equally participate in or benefit from proceedings, programs, and activities of the courts, legislative bodies, administrative agencies, licensing commissions, departments, and boards of this state and its political subdivisions unless qualified interpreters are available to assist such persons.
(Code 1981, §24-6-650, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)
Law reviews.- For article, "Dancing with the Big Boys: Georgia Adopts (most of) the Federal Rules of Evidence," see 63 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2011).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Editor's notes.
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-100 are included in the annotations for this Code section.
Failing to object to presence of interpreters.
- With regard to two defendants' convictions for murder, the defendants failed to show that the defendants received ineffective assistance of counsel based on the defendants' respective trial counsel failing to object to the presence of two sign language interpreters in the jury room as the trial court had the two interpreters take an oath swearing that, during jury deliberations, the interpreters would merely interpret and not interject the interpreters' personal opinions, conclusions, or comments. The defendants failed to present a shred of evidence that the interpreters did anything other than comply fully with the oath taken and that trial counsel had any reasons to suspect the interpreters did otherwise. Smith v. State, 284 Ga. 599, 669 S.E.2d 98 (2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-100).
Adequate accommodation for defendant's hearing loss.
- Defendant's claim of a due process violation because the defendant's hearing impairment prevented the defendant from comprehending the witnesses' testimony was properly rejected. The trial court accommodated the defendant by moving the defendant closer to the witness stand and obtaining a hearing device for the defendant to use, and the defendant's conduct during the trial and statements to defense counsel indicated that the defendant was able to understand the testimony. Neugent v. State, 294 Ga. App. 284, 668 S.E.2d 888 (2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-100).
Trial court did not err by not providing the appellant with adequate hearing assistance during the trial nor was trial counsel ineffective for failing to arrange adequate hearing assistance during the trial because the record reflected that the appellant did not request the assistance of a sign-language interpreter during pre-trial proceedings or at trial and, instead, the trial court provided the appellant with headphones that amplified words spoken into microphones in the courtroom. Birdow v. State, 305 Ga. 48, 823 S.E.2d 736 (2019).
