Commonwealth v. Sammy Lozada

Summary

The court affirmed the allowance of the defendant's motion for a new trial because the trial judge failed to make the statutory threshold determination required before admitting testimony through an interpreter for a severely language-deprived deaf witness. The court held that the statutory protection extends to criminal defendants, that appointment of a substitute interpreter is not a remedy for failing to make the threshold determination, and that the unpreserved error created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. The court did not reach the defendant's constitutional confrontation claim or the alternative ineffective-assistance ground.