Linton v. State

OPINION

Appellant is deaf. She • contends that she did not have adequate deaf-translation services at trial. In this case, we find that the three deaf interpreters provided by the trial court were constitutionally sufficient.1 We therefore reverse the court of appeals, which had held, in essence, that the trial court reversibly erred in not providing the “best” interpretive services — including a deaf-relay interpreter — to ensure appellant’s full understanding of the trial proceedings.2

I

THE TRIAL AND APPEAL

A. The Motion to Suppress

Early one rainy morning, appellant, while driving down Chateau…