providing a precise and accurate translation of the exact testimony of a witness.” Poblete, 2010 ME 37, ¶ 27, 993 A.2d 1104 (quotation marks omitted). We have made clear, however, that “minor deviations from the rules governing interpreters will not necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair.” Id.; see also, e.g., id. ¶¶ 16-18, 28-29 (upholding trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a mistrial where the defendant “presented no evidence that the lack of a word-for-word contemporaneous translation” of certain testimony affected his decision to testify); State v. Green, 564 A.2d 62, 63-64 (Me.1989) (concluding that the failure to appropriately qualify or swear in an interpreter did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial); State v. Doucette, 398 A.2d 36, 39-40 (Me.1978) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 43] Here, the trial court carefully
holding that an interpreters occasional lapses from first to third person when interpreting for the victim did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial recognizing that a lawyer hired by a third person to represent a client should exercise judgment on behalf of the client independent from the interests of the third person holding that the prosecutors description of the defendant as a demon did not deprive him of a fair trial holding that the person who travels as an agent of person defrauded is a victim holding that if defendants developed the intent to deprive the victim of his money only after they beat him unconscious theft would constitute larceny from the person but not robbery