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

Minn. Stat. § 611.31 (2026)

Person Disabled In Communication

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

For the purposes of sections 611.30 to 611.34, "person disabled in communication" means a person who: (1) because of a hearing, speech or other communication disorder, or (2) because of difficulty in speaking or comprehending the English language, cannot fully understand the proceedings or any charges made against the person, or the seizure of the person's property, or is incapable of presenting or assisting in the presentation of a defense.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1987–2019 · leading case: State v. Farrah, 735 N.W.2d 336 (Minn. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Farrah, 735 N.W.2d 336 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 8× “" Minn.Stat. § 611.31 (2006). The term disabled in communication also includes persons disabled in expression or comprehension of the English language.”
State v. Lopez-Ramos, 929 N.W.2d 414 (Minn. 2019). · cites it 2× “11 The use of interpreters has become an important part of our criminal justice system. For example, under Minnesota law, when the police arrest someone who, because of difficulty speaking or understanding English, "cannot fully understand the proceedings or any charges," Minn.”
State v. Kail, 760 N.W.2d 16 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “Minn.Stat. § 611.31. Implicit in the district court’s conclusion that Officer Johnson violated section 611.”
State v. Perez, 404 N.W.2d 834 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “A person “handicapped in communication” is one who: because of difficulty in speaking or comprehending the English language, cannot fully understand the proceedings or any charges made against him, or is incapable of presenting or assisting in the presentation of his defense.”
State v. Castillo-Alvarez, 820 N.W.2d 601 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. §§ 611.31, 611.32, subd. 2 (2010).”
Douglas Duane Bahl v. City of St. Paul, 695 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2012). “Minn.Stat. § 611.31. Whether a deaf person qualifies as a “person disabled in communication” depends on the communication method used during the proceeding.”
State v. Yang, 627 N.W.2d 666 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 611.31 (2000). Once a witness begins to testify without an interpreter, the question of whether an interpreter is needed must rest in the broad discretion of the district court.”
State v. Al-Naseer, 678 N.W.2d 679 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 611.31 (2000). Clearly, this is a situation where having an interpreter would have facilitated better understanding and communication between appellant and his interviewer.”
Jama v. State, 756 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. §§ 611.31, .32 (2006). We review the district court’s decision to appoint or not appoint an interpreter under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”
State v. Marin, 541 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 611.31 (1994). Marin argues the police officers violated Minn.”
State of Minnesota v. Chad Thomas Karnowski (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “” Minn. Stat. § 611.31 (2014). A deaf person who is arrested for drunk driving is not automatically guaranteed an interpreter under Minn.”
State of Minnesota v. Xa Vang (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “A defendant’s 1 Vang asserts on appeal that he should have been provided an interpreter under Minn. Stat. §§ 611.31 , 611.32 (2014). Vang did not, however, challenge this alleged statutory violation in a pretrial motion alleging deprivation of his rights.”
Show all 13 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.