intoxication defense in Minnesota

2016To receive a requested instruction on voluntary intoxication, the defendant must, among other things, “offer intoxication as an explanation for his actions.” State v. Torres, 632 N.W.2d 609, 616 (Minn. 2001); see also State v. Lopez, 587 N.W.2d 26 , 28 & n.5 (Minn. 1998) (“Before the intoxication defense comes into play, a defendant must offer intoxication as an explanation for his actions.”).

2016State v. Torres, 632 N.W.2d 609, 616 (Minn. 2001). 7 counsel, understand the proceedings, or participate in a defense due to mental illness or deficiency.

2016To receive a requested instruction on voluntary intoxication, the defendant must, among other things, “offer intoxication as an explanation for his actions.” State v. Torres, 632 N.W.2d 609, 616 (Minn. 2001); see also State v. Lopez, 587 N.W.2d 26 , 28 & n.5 (Minn. 1998) (“Before the intoxication defense comes into play, a defendant must offer intoxication as an explanation for his actions.”).

2001See Lopez, 587 N.W.2d at 29 (upholding trial court’s refusal to instruct on the intoxication defense where the only direct evidence regarding whether the defendant appeared intoxicated was testimony from a physician’s assistant who treated the defendant several hours before the crime that he did not note or recall any evidence of alcohol or drug use by the defendant).

2015“When a defendant denies that conduct occurred, the intoxication defense is unavailable because he has not placed intent at issue.” State v. Austin, 788 N.W.2d 788 , 794 n.5 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 2010).

2015“When a defendant denies that conduct occurred, the intoxication defense is unavailable because he has not placed intent at issue.” Austin, 788 N.W.2d at 794 n.5.

2015See 15 State v. Rhodes, 657 N.W.2d 823, 842 (Minn. 2003) (“To prevail on such a claim, an appellant must demonstrate that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness . . . .” (quotation omitted)).

2001In State v. Lopez , we stated: Before the intoxication defense comes into play, a defendant must offer intoxication as an explanation for his actions." The mere fact of a person's drinking does not create a presumption of intoxication, and the possibility of intoxication does not create the presumption that a person is rendered incapable of intending to do a certain act." Put another way, a defendant cannot offer intoxication as an explanation for his action solely by introducing evidence that he may have been drinking. 587 N.W.2d 26, 28-29 (Minn.1998) (quoting State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90, 92

2001In State v. Lopez , we stated: Before the intoxication defense comes into play, a defendant must offer intoxication as an explanation for his actions." The mere fact of a person's drinking does not create a presumption of intoxication, and the possibility of intoxication does not create the presumption that a person is rendered incapable of intending to do a certain act." Put another way, a defendant cannot offer intoxication as an explanation for his action solely by introducing evidence that he may have been drinking. 587 N.W.2d 26, 28-29 (Minn.1998) (quoting State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90, 92

1998See State v. Hardy, 577 N.W.2d 212, 216 (Minn.1998) (holding that a request by police that the defendant open his mouth was an illegal search and excluding the contents of the defendant’s mouth because the search caused the events which eventually led to obtaining the evidence).

1991We do, however, caution against future reliance on the instruction language we quoted in State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W.2d 408, 418 (Minn.1980), and prosecutors in future grand jury proceedings should look to the jury instruction guides for direction.

1984As we stated in Fogarty v. Martin Hotel Co., 257 Minn. 398, 403-04 , 101 N.W.2d 601, 605 (1960): Where the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, is such that it reasonably supports the [Court of Appeals’] findings, applicable rules require us to sustain it.

1984As we stated in Fogarty v. Martin Hotel Co., 257 Minn. 398, 403-04 , 101 N.W.2d 601, 605 (1960): Where the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, is such that it reasonably supports the [Court of Appeals’] findings, applicable rules require us to sustain it.