K.S.A. » Chapter 75
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 75-4353 (2026)

Same; qualifications of interpreter; determination; persons disqualified

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

75-4353. Same; qualifications of interpreter; determination; persons disqualified. (a) No one shall be appointed to serve as an interpreter for a person pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 75-4351, and amendments thereto, if such interpreter is married to that person, related to that person within the first or second degrees of consanguinity, living with that person or is otherwise interested in the outcome of the proceeding, unless the appointing authority determines that no other qualified interpreter is available to serve.

(b) No person shall be appointed as an interpreter pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 75-4351, and amendments thereto, unless the appointing authority makes a preliminary determination that the interpreter is able to readily communicate with the person whose primary language is one other than English and is able to accurately repeat and translate the statement of such person.

(c) In appointing a qualified interpreter for a person whose primary language is other than English pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 75-4351 et seq., and amendments thereto, the appointing authority shall appoint: (A) A qualified interpreter who meets the following criteria; or (B) a qualified interpreter who is employed by a technology-based, telecommunications interpretation service available on a twenty-four hour basis who meets the following criteria:

(1) A general understanding of cultural concepts, usage and expressions of the foreign language being interpreted, including the foreign language's varieties, dialects and accents;

(2) the ability to interpret and translate in a manner which reflects the educational level and understanding of the person whose primary language is other than English;

(3) basic knowledge of legal rights of persons involved in law enforcement investigations, administrative matters and court proceedings and procedures, as the case may be; and

(4) sound skills in written and oral communication between English and the foreign language being translated, including the qualified interpreter's ability to translate complex questions, answers and concepts in a timely, coherent and accurate manner.

History: L. 1972, ch. 341, § 3; L. 1973, ch. 364, § 3; L. 1993, ch. 223, § 6; July 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Whether section's requirement that interpreter be uninterested should apply to out-of-state jurisdictions examined. State v. Gallegos, 255 Kan. 382, 387, 874 P.2d 647 (1994).

2. District court's failure to consider the interpreter's qualifications on the record constitutes harmless error. Shaha v. State, 44 Kan. App. 2d 334, 236 P.3d 560 (2010).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1984–2014 · leading case: State v. Giang Nguyen, 133 P.3d 1259 (Kan. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Giang Nguyen, 133 P.3d 1259 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 2× “Did the district court err in denying Giang’s motion to suppress his own statements to police? Next, Giang contends that his own statements to tire police should be suppressed for three reasons: (1) The interpreter was not qualified under K.S.A. 75-4353; (2) Giang should have…”
State v. Pham, 675 P.2d 848 (Kan. 1984). “In reliance upon, and in conformity with, K.S.A. 75-4353, Judge Hodge foünd Ms. Van Pham, as the court’s interpreter, was not interested in the outcome of the trial, was able readily to communicate with a person whose primary language was one other than English, and was able…”
SHAHA v. State, 236 P.3d 560 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “Further, in his 60-1507 motion, Shaha *335 directly challenged the trial court’s failure to insure that his interpreter was properly qualified under K.S.A. 75-4353. Following a nonevidentiary hearing with appointed counsel, the district court denied Shaha’s request for relief.”
State v. Gallegos, 874 P.2d 647 (Kan. 1994). “” K.S.A. 75-4353(a) provides that the interpreter so appointed shall not be “interested in the outcome of the proceeding.”
State v. Garcia-Barron, 329 P.3d 1247 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. 75-4353. The failure to appoint an interpreter during a police interrogation does not, however, necessarily render a confession involuntary.”
Jose Rojas v. Raymond Roberts, & Attorney Gen., State of Kansas, 986 F.2d 1429 (10th Cir. 1993). “4 Petitioner's second complaint before the district court was that the trial court failed to appoint Petitioner a certified interpreter as required by K.S.A. 75-4353(b) which provides as follows: 5 No person shall be appointed as an interpreter pursuant to 75-4351, unless the…”
— K.S.A. § 75-4353(a) — 1 case
State v. Gallegos, 874 P.2d 647 (Kan. 1994). “” K.S.A. 75-4353(a) provides that the interpreter so appointed shall not be “interested in the outcome of the proceeding.”
— K.S.A. § 75-4353(b) — 2 cases
State v. Garcia-Barron, 329 P.3d 1247 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “See K.S.A. 75-4353. The failure to appoint an interpreter during a police interrogation does not, however, necessarily render a confession involuntary.”
Jose Rojas v. Raymond Roberts, & Attorney Gen., State of Kansas, 986 F.2d 1429 (10th Cir. 1993). “4 Petitioner's second complaint before the district court was that the trial court failed to appoint Petitioner a certified interpreter as required by K.S.A. 75-4353(b) which provides as follows: 5 No person shall be appointed as an interpreter pursuant to 75-4351, unless the…”
— K.S.A. § 75-4353(c) — 1 case
SHAHA v. State, 236 P.3d 560 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “Further, in his 60-1507 motion, Shaha *335 directly challenged the trial court’s failure to insure that his interpreter was properly qualified under K.S.A. 75-4353. Following a nonevidentiary hearing with appointed counsel, the district court denied Shaha’s request for relief.”
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.