A. After July 1, 1986, if a non-English speaking person who is a principal party in
interest or a witness has requested an interpreter, the appointing authority shall appoint,
after consultation with the non-English speaking person or his attorney, an interpreter
certified pursuant to the Court Interpreters Act to interpret or to translate the
proceedings to him and to interpret or translate his testimony. The appointing authority
shall select the interpreter from the current list of certified interpreters provided by the
administrative office of the courts, except as provided in Subsection B of this section.
B. The appointing authority may appoint an interpreter pursuant to Subsection A of
this section who is not certified but who is otherwise competent only when the
appointing authority has made diligent efforts to obtain a certified interpreter and has
found none to be reasonably available in the judicial district.
C. The appointing authority shall reimburse the interpreter at a fixed rate according
to a current approved fee schedule established by the administrative office of the courts.
D. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any court from employing a
certified interpreter on a full-time basis or under contract at a mutually agreed upon
compensation rate.
History: Laws 1985, ch. 209, § 3.
ANNOTATIONS
Cross references. — For the duties of the administrative office of courts, see 34-9-3
NMSA 1978.
Right to interpreter. — Statutory and constitutional provisions do not mandate the
appointment of an interpreter to assist respondents to translate documents or interpret
discussions taking place outside of court. State ex rel. CYFD v. William M., 2007-
NMCA-055, 141 N.M. 765, 161 P.3d 262.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Pacheco, 2007-NMSC-009, 155 P.3d 745.
· cites it 2× “Except as otherwise provided below, an uncertified court interpreter should only be used if the requirements of NMSA 1978, Section 38-10-3(B) (1985), are met. In the event that a court must use an uncertified court interpreter, the court should consider briefly examining the…”
State v. Gomez, 815 P.2d 166 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “The interpreter was not certified as required by NMSA 1978, Section 38-10-3 (Repl.Pamp.1987). At the time the district court appointed the interpreter, it informed defendant and his attorney that there were no certified interpreters available for defendant’s trial date.”
State v. Pacheco, 2006-NMCA-002, 126 P.3d 553.
· cites it 8× “Except as otherwise provided below, an uncertified court interpreter should only be used if the requirements of NMSA 1978, Section 38-10-3(B) (1985), are met. In the event that a court must use an uncertified court interpreter, the court should consider briefly examining the…”
State v. Amaya, No. 28,347 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2010).
· cites it 2× “” 6 Section 38-10-3(A). Officer Diaz was not interpreting the proceedings under the Act.”
N.M. Stat. § 38-10-3(A): 1 case
State v. Amaya, No. 28,347 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2010).
“” 6 Section 38-10-3(A). Officer Diaz was not interpreting the proceedings under the Act.”
N.M. Stat. § 38-10-3(B): 2 cases
State v. Pacheco, 2007-NMSC-009, 155 P.3d 745.
“Except as otherwise provided below, an uncertified court interpreter should only be used if the requirements of NMSA 1978, Section 38-10-3(B) (1985), are met. In the event that a court must use an uncertified court interpreter, the court should consider briefly examining the…”
State v. Pacheco, 2006-NMCA-002, 126 P.3d 553.
“Except as otherwise provided below, an uncertified court interpreter should only be used if the requirements of NMSA 1978, Section 38-10-3(B) (1985), are met. In the event that a court must use an uncertified court interpreter, the court should consider briefly examining the…”
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.