Constitutional Issues

The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2(a) (prima facie limits). The Defendant argued that that he was prejudiced at trial because he was not given an interpreter. The Panel noted that a trial justice has discretion in determining if a defendant requires an interpreter and, unless the complaining party provides clear evidence of prejudice, the trial judge’s decision will be upheld. Here, the trial judge asked the Defendant multiple times if he needed a translator, but he responded that he did not. The Panel specifically asked the Defendant whether he had been prejudiced because he did not have an interpreter at the trial and the Defendant responded in the negative. The Panel held that because the Defendant did not present any evidence of prejudice, the trial judge did not err. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial judge’s decision to sustain the violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Henrique DaSilva, C.A. No. T14-0047 (February 17, 2015).pdf