Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 611. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 611.30 (2026)

Right To Interpreter, State Policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state that the constitutional rights of persons disabled in communication cannot be fully protected unless qualified interpreters are available to assist them in legal proceedings. It is the intent of sections 611.30 to 611.34 to provide a procedure for the appointment of interpreters to avoid injustice and to assist persons disabled in communication in their own defense.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1985–2019 · leading case: State v. Mitjans, 408 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Mitjans, 408 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 1987). · cites it 9× “The statutory provisions relied on by the court of appeals are Minn.Stat. §§ 611.30 to 611.34 (1986), which provide in relevant part: 611.”
State v. Lopez-Ramos, 929 N.W.2d 414 (Minn. 2019). · cites it 2× “But even if they were relevant, Lopez-Ramos did not receive those protections.”
State v. Farrah, 735 N.W.2d 336 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 611.30 (2006). [5] Under this policy, following the apprehension or arrest of a person disabled in communication, law enforcement has the obligation to obtain a language interpreter to assist the person throughout custodial interrogation.”
State v. Cham, 680 N.W.2d 121 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Did the district court abuse its discretion by appointing an interpreter for Cham pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 611.30 -.34 (2002)? ANALYSIS I.”
State v. Perez, 404 N.W.2d 834 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “Interpreter Issue Minn.Stat. § 611.30 (1984) provides, in part: It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state that the constitutional rights of persons handicapped in communication cannot be fully protected unless qualified interpreters are available to assist them in…”
State v. Dominguez-Ramirez, 563 N.W.2d 245 (Minn. 1997). · cites it 3× “Mitjans, this court noted that the legislature did not attempt to create any new constitutional rights in enacting Minn. Stat. §§ 611.30 -.33. Mitjans, 408 N.”
State v. Ibrahim, 862 A.2d 787 (R.I. 2004). “” Minn. Stat. § 611.30 (2002). Recently, the *798 Minnesota Court of Appeals, however, held that “[w]hether an interpreter shall be appointed for a defendant is within the discretion of the [trial] court.”
State v. Mitjans, 394 N.W.2d 221 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 611.30 (1984) states: It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state that the constitutional rights of *226 persons handicapped in communication cannot be fully protected unless qualified interpreters are available to assist them in legal proceedings.”
State v. Lopez-Ramos, 913 N.W.2d 695 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “2d at 827, 829 (determining that Minn. Stat. §§ 611.30 to .33 apply to the interrogation of a criminal suspect detained after arrest).”
State v. Lavastida, 366 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 611.30 (1982) provides that it is “the policy of this state that the constitutional rights of persons handicapped in communication cannot be fully protected unless qualified interpreters are available to assist *681 them in legal proceedings.”
State v. Sap, 408 N.W.2d 638 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “” Appellant concedes the prosecution was not acting in bad faith, and that the delay was necessary to protect appellant’s rights.”
State v. Marin, 541 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 611.30 (1994). A suspect who lacks an understanding of the legal proceedings surrounding his or her detainment cannot make intelligent choices regarding the exercise or waiver of fundamental constitutional rights.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.