Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 90.606 (2025)

Interpreters and translators.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

90.606 Interpreters and translators.—

(1)(a) When a judge determines that a witness cannot hear or understand the English language, or cannot express himself or herself in English sufficiently to be understood, an interpreter who is duly qualified to interpret for the witness shall be sworn to do so.

(b) This section is not limited to persons who speak a language other than English, but applies also to the language and descriptions of any person, such as a child or a person who is mentally or developmentally disabled, who cannot be reasonably understood, or who cannot understand questioning, without the aid of an interpreter.

(2) A person who serves in the role of interpreter or translator in any action or proceeding is subject to all the provisions of this chapter relating to witnesses.

(3) An interpreter shall take an oath that he or she will make a true interpretation of the questions asked and the answers given and that the interpreter will make a true translation into English of any writing which he or she is required by his or her duties to decipher or translate.

History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379; s. 2, ch. 85-53; s. 485, ch. 95-147.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Monte v. State, 443 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Monte v. State, 443 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). · cites it 8× “We emphasize, as we must, that the decision to appoint an interpreter in accordance with section 90.606, Florida Statutes (1981), is a matter largely within the trial court's discretion, Watson v.”

Gopar-Santana v. State, 862 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). · cites it 3× “2d DCA 1998); see also § 90.606(1)(a), (2), Fla. Stat. (2001) (requiring an interpreter to be "duly qualified" and sworn and providing that the interpreter will be subject to the rules of evidence relating to witnesses).”

Balderrama v. State, 433 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). · cites it 2× “§ 90.606(3), Fla. Stat. (1981). If a defendant does not understand the full significance of his change of plea because of a language difficulty, then his plea has not been freely and voluntarily made.”

Perez-Sovias v. State, 95 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). · cites it 6× “” Section 90.606 of the Florida Statutes acknowledges this mandate, requiring use of interpreters and translators where a witness cannot speak or understand English: When a judge determines that a witness cannot hear or understand the English language, or cannot express himself…”

Kaelin v. State, 410 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). · cites it 2× “See Section 90.606, Florida Statutes, Law Revision Council Note (1976).”

Ortega v. State, 721 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). · cites it 2× “Second, while Detective Formosa took the oath for a witness, he was not required to take the oath set forth for interpreters and translators under section 90.606, Florida Statutes (1995). In Hutchens v.”

Tehrani v. State, 764 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). · cites it 2× “Section 90.606, Florida Statutes (1997). In this case, the trial court recognized the defendant's difficulty with the language in the first trial.”

Rodriguez v. State, 664 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). · cites it 2× “Defendants first contend that the trial court erred in failing to have the interpreter sworn as required by Section 90.606, Florida Statutes (1993). We conclude that this claim is barred because this was not fundamental error and there was no contemporaneous objection.”

Apolinar v. Fl. Unemployment Appeals Com'n, 710 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). · cites it 2× “See § 90.606, Fla. Stat. (1995). Reversed and remanded.”

Marlon Joel Rivera v. State of Florida, 182 So. 3d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). · cites it 2× “'Although there is a Florida statute that addresses the appointment of interpreters to translate for non-English speaking or otherwise language-impaired witnesses, see § 90.606, Fla. Stat. (2012), there is no Florida statute addressing the appointment of interpreters for…”

Mesidor v. State, 521 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). “During the plea proceedings, the trial court failed to comply with § 90.606, Florida Statutes (1985), by failing to swear in the interpreter.”

Guardian Ad Litem Prog. v. O.R., 45 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). · cites it 2× “As the Department says, [pjursuant to § 90.606, Fla. Stat. (2010), when the lower court makes the determination that a witness cannot understand English, the court orders an interpreter.”

Show all 21 citing cases →

— 90.606(1)(a) — 4 cases

Gopar-Santana v. State, 862 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). “2d DCA 1998); see also § 90.606(1)(a), (2), Fla. Stat. (2001) (requiring an interpreter to be "duly qualified" and sworn and providing that the interpreter will be subject to the rules of evidence relating to witnesses).”

Perez-Sovias v. State, 95 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). “” Section 90.606 of the Florida Statutes acknowledges this mandate, requiring use of interpreters and translators where a witness cannot speak or understand English: When a judge determines that a witness cannot hear or understand the English language, or cannot express himself…”

Louis Atallah & Bam Bam Ent., LLC v. Transworld Bus. Brokers of Florida, LLC (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

Obando v. State, 988 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

— 90.606(2) — 1 case

— 90.606(3) — 7 cases

Monte v. State, 443 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). “We emphasize, as we must, that the decision to appoint an interpreter in accordance with section 90.606, Florida Statutes (1981), is a matter largely within the trial court's discretion, Watson v.”

Balderrama v. State, 433 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). “§ 90.606(3), Fla. Stat. (1981). If a defendant does not understand the full significance of his change of plea because of a language difficulty, then his plea has not been freely and voluntarily made.”

Bcs, Srl v. Wise, 910 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Echemendia v. State, 735 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.