Thе trial court convicted Maurice Saunders of attempted murder, malicious wounding, two counts of robbery, and four related firearms charges. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in admitting a transcript of the victim’s testimony at the preliminary hearing. He argues that the general district court did not comply with Code § 19.2-164 1 when it appointed an interpreter and that the translations were inaccurate. Finding no error, we affirm.
Two men robbed the victim, Riadh Mejri, at gunpoint while he worked аt Valley Food Store. The victim testified through an interpreter at the preliminary hearing, but the victim was murdered before the trial. The victim primarily spoke Arabic but also spoke French having been born in France. A friend of the victim offered to translate Arabic. The defendant objected because of bias, and the district court sustained the objection. The Commonwealth then offered a French interpreter. After speaking with the interpreter, the victim indicated he was comfortablе with the interpreter and chose to use her. The district court judge swore the interpreter, who translated for the victim throughout the hearing.
The defendant made no оbjection in district court to the use of the interpreter or to the accuracy of the translations. He made no objections about the preliminary heаring after the charges were certified to the circuit court. At trial, the Commonwealth introduced the death certificate of the victim and proffered the сertified preliminary hearing transcript. *195 The defendant moved to exclude it. The circuit court admitted the transcript.
First, the defendant contends the circuit court еrred in admitting the transcript because the district court failed to appoint an interpreter fluent in the language of the witness’ country of origin. The defendant complains about decisions made by the district court during the prehminary hearing, not to decisions made by the circuit court. Code § 19.2-164 clearly states the approvаl and appointment of interpreters is a decision of “the judge of the court in which the case is to be heard.” The defendant objected to one interpreter, and the district court sustained that objection. He made no further objection, and the district court approved the French interpreter and proсeeded with the preliminary hearing without objection.
The purpose of requiring a contemporaneous objection is to enable the opposing рarty to respond to the alleged error and to enable the ruling court to take any necessary corrective action. Rule 5A:18;
Weidman v. Babcock,
The record of the preliminary hearing does not indicate the district court erred when appointing the interpreter. The defendant contends the district court judge failed to appoint an interpreter fluent in the language of the country of the victim, which the dеfendant asserts is Arabic. Under the literal interpretation he urges, no one would qualify to translate Arabic. While widely spoken, and the predominant language in many сountries, Arabic is not affiliated with a particular country. Arabia is a peninsula. Code § 19.2-164 cannot be read literally because languages frequently do not cоrrelate with national boundaries or identify with a single country: English, German, Spanish. We cannot adopt a statutory interpretation that leads to an illogical result.
Ear
*196
ley v. Landsidle,
Next, we consider the defendant’s contention that the circuit court should have excluded the transcript because it was inaccurate.
2
The judge presiding at the proceedings being transcribed determines “the veracity of the proceedings before him.”
Stubblefield v. Commonwealth,
The proceedings at the preliminary hearing for this defendant met the requirements of Stubblefield. The presiding judge directed the interpreter to give an accurate, verbatim translation of everything the victim sаid and instructed her to request the victim to keep his answers short. The record reflects that when the defendant wanted to make certain the victim understood the quеstion, the interpreter clarified both the question and the victim’s response. When the defendant objected to an unresponsive answer, the presiding judge sustained thе objection.
Contrary to the defendant’s assertion that the transcript is “riddled with mistakes,” the presiding judge’s “admonishments” to the interpreter show that he was discharging his duty to ensurе an accurate translation. An interpreter’s “difficulty in translating the testimony, without more, is insufficient to rebut the presumption that [s]he has acted proper
*197
ly.”
Id.
at 350-51,
The prior testimony of a deceased witness is admissible at trial.
Shifflett v. Commonwealth,
When the former testimony carries sufficient indicia of reliability, it provides the trier оf fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the earlier testimony.
Fisher v. Commonwealth,
*198 Upon careful review of the record, we conclude the circuit court did not err in admitting and relying upon the transcript of the victim’s testimony at the preliminary hearing.
Affirmed.
Notes
. Code § 19.2-164 provides in part,
[i]n any criminal case in which a non-English-speaking person is a victim or witness, an interpreter shall be appointed by the judge of the сourt in which the case is to be heard____An English-speaking person fluent in the language of the country of the ... victim or a witness shall be appointed by the judge of the cоurt in which the case is to be heard, unless such person obtains an interpreter of his own choosing who is approved by the court as being competent.... The provisions of this section shall apply in both circuit courts and district courts.
. To the extent the defendant argues the circuit court’s admission of the preliminary hearing transcript violated his federal constitutional rights, he did not make this argument to the circuit court and cannot raise it now.
West Alexandria Props. v. First Virginia Mortgage, 221
Va. 134, 138,
. To the extent the defendant contends the trаnslation was inaccurate, the record provides no means to verify the translation. The transcript records only the English spoken at the preliminary hearing. Withоut a transcript of the French spoken, we are unable to compare the testimony given in French with its translation into English to determine whether the translation was аccurate. See Code § 8.01-406 (authorizing a video transcript of testimony by deaf witnesses for use in verifying the official transcript).
. Code § 19.2-165 provides in part that “[t]he transcript in any case certified by the reporter ... shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of the evidence and incidents of trial.”