Lack of a simultaneous translation; People v. Gonzalez-Raymundo; Right to an interpreter; MCL 775.19a; Use of foreign language interpreters; MCR 1.111(B)(1) & (C)(1); Prosecutorial misconduct; General statement that the evidence was uncontroverted even when only defendant could have contradicted it; People v. Fields; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Trial strategy; People v. Matuszak; Failure to make a futile objection

The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in determining that “defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to an interpreter during trial” or abuse its discretion in not appointing an interpreter for the victim. It also rejected his prosecutorial misconduct claim, concluding that the prosecutor did not improperly remark on defendant’s silence in rebuttal closing argument. Finally, it found no merit to his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Defendant was convicted of CSC III for an incident that occurred when he and the victim were both international students at a Michigan university. Because it found that the trial court did not err as to defendant’s waiver of his right to an interpreter, the court held that there was no due process violation when the trial court allowed him to proceed to trial without simultaneous translation. As to the failure to appoint an interpreter for the victim, while the record indicated that she “had difficulty understanding colloquial English terms, the record did not demonstrate that she was ‘not understandable, comprehensible, or intelligible . . . .’” Rather, the record showed she was “clearly able to talk about the events leading up to the incident. More importantly, she was able to explain how defendant sexually assaulted her.” As to the prosecutorial misconduct claim, while the prosecutor asserted that parts “of the victim’s testimony were ‘uncontroverted,’ the record does not support defendant’s argument that the prosecutor focused the jury’s attention on” the fact he did not testify. Instead, the record showed that the prosecutor focused “on the elements of the crime.” Lastly, the court found that defense counsel’s decisions about interpreters were sound trial strategy under the circumstances and that counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a futile objection to the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument. Defendant failed to show that defense “counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” or prejudice. Affirmed.