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

K.S.A. § 75-4354 (2026)

Same; duty of interpreter; oath; disclosure

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

75-4354. Same; duty of interpreter; oath; disclosure. (a) Every interpreter appointed pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 75-4351, and amendments thereto, before entering upon such interpreter's duties, shall take an oath that such interpreter will make a true interpretation in an understandable manner to the person for whom such interpreter is appointed, and that such interpreter will repeat the statements of such person in the English language to the best of such interpreter's skill and judgment.

(b) An interpreter who is employed to interpret, transliterate or relay a communication between a person who can speak English and a person whose primary language is one other than English is a conduit for the communication and may not disclose or be compelled to disclose, through reporting, testimony or by subpoena, the contents of the communication.

History: L. 1972, ch. 341, § 4; L. 1993, ch. 223, § 8; July 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Whether failure to qualify communications facilitator as an interpreter for autistic child witness constitutes reversible error examined. State v. Warden, 257 Kan. 94, 117, 891 P.2d 1074 (1994).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: State v. Pham, 675 P.2d 848 (Kan. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Pham, 675 P.2d 848 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 2× “In other words, a person may not be an interpreter if he or she is incapable of expressing themselves, 60-417(a), or is incapable of understanding the duty to tell the truth, 60-417(h), i.”
State v. Warden, 891 P.2d 1074 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 75-4354 states: “Every interpreter appointed pursuant to the provisions of K.”
State v. Garcia-Barron, 329 P.3d 1247 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “” K.S.A. 75-4354(b). Because Salcido and Garcia-Barron were the only two people involved in their conversation, it is logically impossible for Salcido to have been acting as an interpreter.”
State v. Noches-Padilla (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “The State acknowledges Bagley's holding but argues it was an incorrect reading of the statute. The State asserts that given the Kansas Supreme Court's emphasis on the plain language of the statute, Bagley would not pass muster today.”
State v. Garcia-Gomez (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “75-4351 through K.S.A. 75-4354. In fact, the record reveals that Garcia- Gomez was not only aware of K.”
— K.S.A. § 75-4354(b) — 1 case
State v. Garcia-Barron, 329 P.3d 1247 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “” K.S.A. 75-4354(b). Because Salcido and Garcia-Barron were the only two people involved in their conversation, it is logically impossible for Salcido to have been acting as an interpreter.”
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.