Wash. Rev. Code » Title 2 · Chapter 2.43
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.030 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1)(a) Credentialed interpreters shall be appointed in legal proceedings involving participation of persons with limited English proficiency, unless good cause is found on the record for appointing a noncredentialed interpreter.
(b) For purposes of this chapter, "good cause" includes, but is not limited to, a determination that:
(i) Given the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the proceeding and the potential penalty or consequences involved, the services of a credentialed interpreter are not reasonably available; or
(ii) The current list of interpreters maintained by the administrative office of the courts does not include an interpreter credentialed in the language spoken by the person with limited English proficiency.
(2) If good cause is found for using an interpreter who is not credentialed, the judicial or presiding officer shall make a preliminary determination on the record that the proposed interpreter is able to interpret accurately all communications to and from the person with limited English proficiency in that particular proceeding. The judicial or presiding officer shall consider testimony and the needs of the person with limited English proficiency in making this determination.
(3) After an appropriate colloquy or other process permitted by statute or regulation, the judicial or presiding officer shall satisfy itself and state on the record that:
(a) The proposed interpreter is capable of communicating effectively in English and in the non-English language. If the interpreter is assigned to interpret between two non-English languages (relay interpreter), the interpreter shall not be required to communicate in English;
(b) The proposed interpreter has read, understands, and will abide by the code of professional responsibility for judiciary interpreters established by court rule. If the interpreter does not meet this requirement, the interpreter may be given time to review the code of professional responsibility for judiciary interpreters; and
(c) The person with limited English proficiency can understand the interpreter.
(4) The court shall inquire whether the interpreter can accurately interpret:
(a) In the consecutive mode, if that mode of interpretation is expected to be used; and
(b) In the simultaneous mode, if that mode of interpretation is expected to be used.
(5) If the proposed interpreter does not meet the criteria in subsection (3) of this section, another interpreter must be used.
[ 2025 c 55 s 3; 2005 c 282 s 3; 1990 c 183 s 1; 1989 c 358 s 3. Formerly RCW 2.42.220.]

Notes:

Severability—1989 c 358: See note following RCW 2.43.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1994–2023 · leading case: KUSTURA v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 233 P.3d 853 (Wash. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
KUSTURA v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 233 P.3d 853 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 8× “This right comes from the interplay between RCW 2.43.030(1) and WAC 263-12-097. ¶ 17 RCW 2.”
Kustura v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash. 2d 81 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 7× “¶17 RCW 2.43.030(1) defines the scope of the right to an appointed interpreter’s services in a legal proceeding: Whenever an interpreter is appointed to assist a non-English-speaking person in a legal proceeding, the appointing authority shall, in the absence of a written waiver…”
KUSTURA v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 175 P.3d 1117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 7× “43 ¶ 38 The workers next argue that RCW 2.43.030 requires interpreters at all phases of claim administration at the Department level and for all proceedings before the Board.”
Tatyana Mason, V John Mason & Laurie Robertson, 497 P.3d 431 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “The statutory right to an interpreter under ch. 2.43 RCW is designed to advance the declared policy of this state: 16 No.”
State of Washington v. Mahadi H. Aljaffar, 392 P.3d 1070 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “In examining the record in this regard, we look at Mr.”
State v. Teshome, 122 Wash. App. 705 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “RCW 2.43.030(2) provides that when appointing a noncertified interpreter, “the appointing authority shall make a preliminary determination .”
State v. Pham, 879 P.2d 321 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “He argues RCW 2.43.030 expressly protects the constitutional due process rights of the accused and therefore the court erred in protecting T.”
State v. Gonzales-Morales, 979 P.2d 826 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “Under RCW 2.43.030, when an interpreter is appointed, unless there is a written waiver by the non-English-speaking person, "a certified or qualified interpreter [is] to assist the person throughout the [legal] proceedings.”
State v. Gonzales-Morales, 138 Wash. 2d 374 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “Under RCW 2.43.030, when an interpreter is appointed, unless there is a written waiver by the non-English-speaking person, “a certified or qualified interpreter [is] to assist the person throughout the [legal] proceedings.”
Kustura v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash. App. 655 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 7× “43 RCW ¶38 The workers next argue that RCW 2.43.030 requires interpreters at all phases of claim administration at the Department level and for all proceedings before the Board.”
State v. Ramirez-Dominguez, 140 Wash. App. 233 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Former RCW 2.43.030(1). But “ ‘[a]s long as the defendant’s ability to understand the proceedings and communicate with counsel is unimpaired, the appropriate use of interpreters in the courtroom is a matter within the discretion of the [trial] court.”
State v. Nemitz, 19 P.3d 480 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 2.43.030. It does not cover jurors, and for good reason.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.030(1) — 11 cases
KUSTURA v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 233 P.3d 853 (Wash. 2010). “This right comes from the interplay between RCW 2.43.030(1) and WAC 263-12-097. ¶ 17 RCW 2.”
Kustura v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash. 2d 81 (Wash. 2010). “¶17 RCW 2.43.030(1) defines the scope of the right to an appointed interpreter’s services in a legal proceeding: Whenever an interpreter is appointed to assist a non-English-speaking person in a legal proceeding, the appointing authority shall, in the absence of a written waiver…”
State v. Ramirez-Dominguez, 140 Wash. App. 233 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Former RCW 2.43.030(1). But “ ‘[a]s long as the defendant’s ability to understand the proceedings and communicate with counsel is unimpaired, the appropriate use of interpreters in the courtroom is a matter within the discretion of the [trial] court.”
KUSTURA v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 175 P.3d 1117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “43 ¶ 38 The workers next argue that RCW 2.43.030 requires interpreters at all phases of claim administration at the Department level and for all proceedings before the Board.”
Mestrovac v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. of State, 176 P.3d 536 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.030(1)(a) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V Biniam Yirgalem Gebremariem (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.030(1)(b) — 3 cases
KUSTURA v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 175 P.3d 1117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “43 ¶ 38 The workers next argue that RCW 2.43.030 requires interpreters at all phases of claim administration at the Department level and for all proceedings before the Board.”
State v. Ramirez-Dominguez, 165 P.3d 391 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
State Of Washington, V Biniam Yirgalem Gebremariem (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.030(1)(b)(ii) — 1 case
Dependency Of: D.j.p., C.j.p., J.j.p., A.j.p., N.v.p., T.j.c.p. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.030(1)(c) — 5 cases
Tatyana Mason, V John Mason & Laurie Robertson, 497 P.3d 431 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “The statutory right to an interpreter under ch. 2.43 RCW is designed to advance the declared policy of this state: 16 No.”
KUSTURA v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 233 P.3d 853 (Wash. 2010). “This right comes from the interplay between RCW 2.43.030(1) and WAC 263-12-097. ¶ 17 RCW 2.”
State Of Washington, V Iskander Nuriyev (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
State Of Washington, V Biniam Yirgalem Gebremariem (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington, V. Roberto Alexander Cruz Yon, 498 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.030(2) — 6 cases
State v. Teshome, 122 Wash. App. 705 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 2.43.030(2) provides that when appointing a noncertified interpreter, “the appointing authority shall make a preliminary determination .”
State v. Teshome, 94 P.3d 1004 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
In Re The Interest Of: J.E.D.A., Jr., 413 P.3d 574 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Dependency Of: D.j.p., C.j.p., J.j.p., A.j.p., N.v.p., T.j.c.p. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
State Of Washington, V Biniam Yirgalem Gebremariem (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.030(2)(a) — 1 case
Dependency Of: D.j.p., C.j.p., J.j.p., A.j.p., N.v.p., T.j.c.p. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.030(2)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Gonzales-Morales, 958 P.2d 339 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
Dependency Of: D.j.p., C.j.p., J.j.p., A.j.p., N.v.p., T.j.c.p. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.030(l)(b) — 4 cases
State of Washington v. Mahadi H. Aljaffar, 392 P.3d 1070 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “In examining the record in this regard, we look at Mr.”
State v. Pham, 879 P.2d 321 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “He argues RCW 2.43.030 expressly protects the constitutional due process rights of the accused and therefore the court erred in protecting T.”
State v. Serrano, 977 P.2d 47 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
Kustura v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash. App. 655 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “43 RCW ¶38 The workers next argue that RCW 2.43.030 requires interpreters at all phases of claim administration at the Department level and for all proceedings before the Board.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.030(l)(b)(i) — 1 case
State v. Pham, 879 P.2d 321 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “He argues RCW 2.43.030 expressly protects the constitutional due process rights of the accused and therefore the court erred in protecting T.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.030(l)(c) — 1 case
Kustura v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash. 2d 81 (Wash. 2010). “¶17 RCW 2.43.030(1) defines the scope of the right to an appointed interpreter’s services in a legal proceeding: Whenever an interpreter is appointed to assist a non-English-speaking person in a legal proceeding, the appointing authority shall, in the absence of a written waiver…”
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.