§ 609.075

Minnesota Statutes

Source: 2025 Minnesota Statutes. For the official text, see revisor.mn.gov.

Citing Cases (39)

Minnesota Supreme Court

State of Minnesota v. Christopher James Colgrove · 2023 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Wilson · 2013 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Fleck · 2012 7 citations

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Hannon · 2005 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Torres · 2001 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Voorhees v. State · 2001 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Lopez · 1998 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Cole · 1996 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Netland · 1995 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Thunberg · 1992 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Provost · 1992 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Bowers · 1992 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Erickson · 1989 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Buchanan · 1988 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Peterson · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Bouwman · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Dulak · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Brant · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Nurmi · 1983 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Bouwman · 1982 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Johnson · 1982 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Lindahl · 1981 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Minnesota Court of Appeals

State of Minnesota v. Joseph John Hall · 2023 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Jama · 2018 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Damien Tito Jones · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Spidel Wayne Browder · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Dusty Lee Littledog · 2014 1 citation

3 Appellant also argues that he was so intoxicated, that no person could reasonably take his threats seriously. This argument fails. The voluntary intoxication defense is available only for crimes with a specific intent element, and thus not for reckless disregard threats. Bjergum, 771 N.W.2d at 56-57. Moreover, intoxication is a defense, and the state is not required to disprove a defense during the factual basis for a guilty plea. Minn. Stat. § 609.075 (2012). Even if the state was required to do so, the appellant acknowledged on the record that he did not claim that he was so drunk or under the influence of drugs or medicine at the time of the crime that he did know what he was doing.

State v. Wilson · 2012 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Cogger · 2011 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Fleck · 2011 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Austin · 2010 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Bjergum · 2009 2 citations

A person commits a terroristic-threats crime when he “threatens, directly or indirectly, to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize another ... or in a reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.” Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd. 1. A person’s voluntary intoxication can be considered in determining his intent or state of mind if the offense includes “a particular intent or other state of mind [as] a necessary element to constitute a particular crime.” Minn. Stat. § 609.075. Because the district court interpreted “reckless disregard” in the terroristic-threats statute as indicating a general rather than a specific-intent crime, it refused to give the instruction. Bjergum asks us to fault that interpretation. We do not.