GEORGE KUSI v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Battaglia, Filed May 19, 2014,
Interpreters- Error in failing to appoint an interpreter is reviewed for clear error with regard to factual determinations and abuse of discretion with regard to the ultimate determination.

CP 1-202(a)(1) states

The court shall appoint a qualified interpreter to help a defendant in a criminal proceeding throughout any criminal proceeding when the defendant:
…
(ii) cannot readily understand or communicate the English language and cannot understand a charge made against the defendant or help present the defense.

Requiring a two-step analysis by the trial court: Can the defendant readily understand or communicate the English language? And can the defendant “understand a charge made against [him] or help present the defense.”

The majority held that (regarding the determination of whether to appoint an interpreter):
Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error
and the ultimate determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

A concurrence by McDonald (joined by CJ Barbera) notes that the mandatory language of CP 1-202 does not allow for any discretion whatsoever if the preconditions are met, so the “abuse of discretion” inquiry is superfluous.