Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 50 - WITNESSES

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.054

Interpreter for person with limited English proficiency: Eligibility; oath; rights and privileges; replacement; payment of claims

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 50.054  Interpreter for person with limited English proficiency: Eligibility; oath; rights and privileges; replacement; payment of claims.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided by a rule of the Court Administrator adopted pursuant to NRS 1.510 and 1.520, a person shall not act as an interpreter in a proceeding if the interpreter is:

      (a) The spouse of a witness;

      (b) Otherwise related to a witness;

      (c) Biased for or against one of the parties; or

      (d) Otherwise interested in the outcome of the proceeding.

      2.  Before undertaking his or her duties, the interpreter shall swear or affirm that he or she will:

      (a) To the best of his or her ability, interpret accurately to the person with limited English proficiency in the language of the person, questions and statements addressed to the person;

      (b) Make a true interpretation of the statements of the person with limited English proficiency in an understandable manner; and

      (c) Repeat the statements of the person with limited English proficiency to the best of his or her ability.

      3.  While in the proper performance of his or her duties, an interpreter has the same rights and privileges as the person with limited English proficiency including the right to examine all relevant material, but is not entitled to waive or exercise any of those rights or privileges on behalf of the person with limited English proficiency.

      4.  If an interpreter appointed for a person with limited English proficiency is not effectively or accurately communicating with or on behalf of the person, and that fact becomes known to the person who appointed the interpreter, another interpreter must be appointed.

      5.  Claims against a county, municipality, this State or any agency thereof for the compensation of an interpreter in a criminal proceeding or other proceeding for which an interpreter must be provided at public expense must be paid in the same manner as other claims against the respective entities are paid. Payment may be made only upon the certificate of the judge, magistrate or other person presiding over the proceedings that the interpreter has performed the services required and incurred the expense claimed.

      6.  As used in this section:

      (a) “Interpreter” means a person who has a certificate or registration as an interpreter issued by the Court Administrator pursuant to NRS 1.510 and 1.520.

      (b) “Person with limited English proficiency” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 1.510.

      (Added to NRS by 1995, 803; A 2001, 1775; 2007, 169; 2013, 1461; 2017, 1144; 2023, 2609)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2006–2015 · leading case: Baltazar-Monterrosa v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Baltazar-Monterrosa v. State (2006) nev “Police interviews of non-English-speaking defendants need not be conducted by an independent interpreter Baltazar-Monterrosa argues that the police interpreters in this case were biased and that police interviews of non-English-speakers should be conducted by independent…”
Bai (Xiao) v. State (2015) nev “Additionally, although Bai's counsel objected to Pei translating portions of the letter in general, and objected after each translation with which he disagreed, Pei was not acting as a court interpreter, and thus was not required to meet the court interpreter qualifications…”
Xia (Chi) v. State (2015) nev “3d 1137, 1139 (2006), but argues that the detective's interpretation of his statements was the only translation heard by the jury and that the detectives were biased and had an interest in the outcome, see NRS 50.054(1)(c), (d). Appellant failed to object below, so we review for…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.054(1)(c) — 1 case
Xia (Chi) v. State (2015) nev “3d 1137, 1139 (2006), but argues that the detective's interpretation of his statements was the only translation heard by the jury and that the detectives were biased and had an interest in the outcome, see NRS 50.054(1)(c), (d). Appellant failed to object below, so we review for…”
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.