State v. Chen

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Deqing Chen, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-182587

Appeal From Beaufort County
D. Craig Brown, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-675
Submitted November 1, 2012 – Filed December 19, 2012

AFFIRMED

James Arthur Brown, Jr., of Law Offices of Jim Brown,
P.A., of Beaufort, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant
Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Beaufort, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Melton v. Olenik, 379 S.C. 45, 50-54, 664 S.E.2d 487, 490-93 (Ct.
App. 2008) (holding the appointment of a qualified interpreter lies within the trial
court's discretion); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-1-50(A)(4) (2003) ("'Qualified interpreter'
means a person who: (a) is eighteen years of age or older; (b) is not a family
member of a party or a witness; (c) is not a person confined to an institution; and
(d) has education, training, or experience that enables him to speak English and a
foreign language fluently, and is readily able to interpret simultaneously and
consecutively and to sight-translate documents from English into the language . . .
."); Peoples Nat. Bank of Greenville v. Manos Bros., Inc., 226 S.C. 257, 280, 84
S.E.2d 857, 868 (1954) (overruled on other grounds) ("The qualifications of an
interpreter depend much on the circumstances, and should be left for the
determination of the trial court."); Rule 1, RPCCI, Rule 511, SCACR ("Interpreters
shall render a complete and accurate interpretation, or sight translation, without
altering, omitting or adding anything to what is stated or written, and without
explanation or summarization."); Rule 3, RPCCI, Rule 511, SCACR ("Interpreters
shall be impartial and unbiased and shall refrain from conduct that may give an
appearance of bias. Interpreters shall disclose any real or perceived conflict of
interest."); Rule 3, RPCCI, Rule 511, SCACR, cmt. (instructing the existence of a
potential conflict of interest "does not alone disqualify an interpreter from
providing services as long as the interpreter is able to render services objectively").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.