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

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.060 (2026)

Waiver of right to interpreter

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The right to an interpreter may not be waived except when:
(a) A person with limited English proficiency requests a waiver on the record; and
(b) The judicial or presiding officer determines on the record that the waiver has been made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.
(2) The waiver of the right to an interpreter may be set aside and an interpreter appointed at the discretion of the judicial or presiding officer at any time during the proceedings.
(3) The waiver of the right to an interpreter does not preclude a person with limited English proficiency from exercising the right to an interpreter at a later time.
[ 2025 c 55 s 5; 1989 c 358 s 6. Formerly RCW 2.42.250.]

Notes:

Severability—1989 c 358: See note following RCW 2.43.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2015–2017 · leading case: State of Iowa v. Carlos Ariel Gomez Garcia, 904 N.W.2d 172 (Iowa 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Iowa v. Carlos Ariel Gomez Garcia, 904 N.W.2d 172 (Iowa 2017). “); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 2.43.060 (West, Westlaw through 2017 3d Spec.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Khan, 184 Wash. 2d 679 (Wash. 2015). “RCW 2.43.060(l)(b). There is no question Khan had a constitutional and statutory right to an interpreter—a right that he did not waive and a right that his attorney could not waive for him, even under the guise of trial strategy.”
In re Pers. Restraint of Khan (Wash. 2015). · cites it 2× “4 4 I han also asserts that the trial judge had a duty to provide him with an interpreter and that only he himself could waive the right to an interpreter.”
State of Iowa v. Carlos Ariel Gomez Garcia (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). “, Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.060 (2) (2016) (“Waiver of a qualified interpreter may be set aside and an interpreter appointed, in the discretion of the appointing authority, at any time during the proceedings.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.060(1)(b) — 1 case
In re Pers. Restraint of Khan (Wash. 2015). “4 4 I han also asserts that the trial judge had a duty to provide him with an interpreter and that only he himself could waive the right to an interpreter.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.060(l)(b) — 1 case
In re the Pers. Restraint of Khan, 184 Wash. 2d 679 (Wash. 2015). “RCW 2.43.060(l)(b). There is no question Khan had a constitutional and statutory right to an interpreter—a right that he did not waive and a right that his attorney could not waive for him, even under the guise of trial strategy.”
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.