State v. Tunkara, 298 Ga. 488

Tunkara was indicted for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a knife; first trial ended in a mistrial, second trial resulted in conviction and life sentence.
At the second trial, a non‑certified Soninke interpreter (different from the certified interpreter at the first trial) sat with Tunkara and translated proceedings.
During trial counsel moved for a mistrial, asserting the interpreter provided incomplete/inaccurate translations; the trial court denied the motion based on Tunkara’s demeanor.
Tunkara later filed an amended motion for new trial alleging the interpreter’s inadequacy deprived him of the ability to understand the trial and violated due process and his right to be present.
After a hearing on the motion, the trial court found a ‘‘complete breakdown’’ in Tunkara’s understanding due to the interpreter, concluded this prejudiced him, and granted a new trial citing OCGA §§ 5‑5‑20 and 5‑5‑21.
The State appealed, arguing the trial court applied the wrong statutory standard (general‑grounds statutes) and abused its discretion because the evidence supported the conviction.

Issue	Tunkara’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could grant a new trial because the court‑appointed interpreter inadequately translated, depriving Tunkara of understanding and due process	Interpreter’s inaccurate/incomplete translations prevented Tunkara from understanding trial, violating his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and warranting a new trial	Trial court applied wrong standard (general‑grounds statutes); evidence supported the verdict so a new trial was not warranted	The trial court’s factual finding that Tunkara did not understand the proceedings justified granting a new trial under the ‘‘other grounds’’ statute (OCGA § 5‑5‑25); affirmation under right‑for‑any‑reason rule
Whether citation of OCGA §§ 5‑5‑20 and 5‑5‑21 (general grounds) instead of OCGA § 5‑5‑25 (other grounds) invalidated the grant of a new trial	The statutory citation error did not negate the trial court’s exercise of broad discretion to correct a trial unfair due to interpreter inadequacy	The State argued the court failed to make weight‑of‑evidence findings required by §§ 5‑5‑20/21	The court held the trial court’s mistaken citation was harmless because OCGA § 5‑5‑25 authorizes granting a new trial on ‘‘other grounds,’’ including interpreter inadequacy; the State conceded the trial court could act under § 5‑5‑25