State of Washington v. Mahadi H. Aljaffar
198 Wash. App. 75
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mahadi Aljaffar, a Saudi national with primary Arabic, faced multiple felony sex-offense charges in Spokane County; he claimed lack of certified Arabic interpreter at trial violated RCW 2.43.030 and his rights.
- The State could not obtain a certified Arabic interpreter and proposed proceeding with uncertified interpreter Imad Beirouty, over Aljaffar's objection.
- The trial court allowed Beirouty to interpret without a good-cause finding, administer the interpreter oath, and proceed to trial.
- A reference hearing found numerous discrepancies between Beirouty’s Arabic interpretation and certified Arabic testimony, including third-person narration and commentary.
- On appeal, the court remanded to determine prejudice, then conducted its own review of statutory and constitutional rights, ultimately affirming the conviction despite the good-cause and prejudice questions.
- The court held that the failure to appoint a certified interpreter without good cause was a statutory violation, not a manifest constitutional error, and found no reversible prejudice on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether use of an uncertified interpreter violated RCW 2.43.030 | Aljaffar argues lack of certified interpreter prejudiced trial | State contends no error if good cause shown or no prejudice | Unlawful without good cause; prejudice not shown on record |
| Whether the trial court’s good-cause findings were required and proper | Aljaffar asserts no good cause existed to forgo certification | State claims logistical difficulties constitute good cause | Trial court abused discretion by failing to satisfy RCW 2.43.030(b) but error not prejudicial |
| Whether absence of certified interpreter violated constitutional rights | Beirouty’s interpretation compromised confrontation and participation | Record did not show constitutional prejudice | Constitutional claims preserved only as manifest error; not shown |
| Whether reference hearing adequately assessed prejudice | Record insufficient to gauge impact of interpretation | Trial court’s findings supported no prejudice | Reference hearing supported no material prejudice |
| Remedies for statutory violation when prejudice not shown | Relief required due to statutory violation | Harmlessness standard does not apply; but prejudice not shown | Remand and informational findings insufficient to reverse; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gonzales-Morales, 138 Wn.2d 374 (1999) (non-English speakers entitled to court-appointed interpreter; constitutional concerns acknowledged)
- State v. Tuoc Ba Pham, 75 Wn. App. 626 (1994) (no constitutional right to certified interpreter; statute controls)
- State v. Cunningham, 93 Wn.2d 823 (1980) (harmless-error standard not applicable for statutory failure; prejudice assessment required)
- State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91 (2009) (manifest error requires actual prejudice identifiable in trial record)
- State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918 (2007) (articulates manifest error and prejudice considerations)
- City of Kent v. Sandhu, 159 Wn. App. 836 (2011) (government obligation to arrange interpreters; good-faith logistics evaluated)
- State v. Chichester, 141 Wn. App. 446 (2007) (precedent on interpreter availability and trial readiness)
- State v. Lord, 161 Wn.2d 276 (2007) (abuse of discretion standard in constitutional-issue context)