Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 340.96 (2026)

[Repealed]

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

[Repealed, 1971 c 90 s 2]

Notes of Decisions
State v. Fearon, 166 N.W.2d 720 (Minn. 1969). · cites it 9× “He was arrested and subsequently tried for violating § 340.96, which provides: “Every person who becomes intoxicated by voluntarily drinking intoxicating liquors is guilty of the crime of drunkenness, and shall be punished as follows: * * (Italicssupplied.”
City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 238 N.W.2d 851 (Minn. 1976). · cites it 2× “1969, § 340.96 (since repealed by L.1971, c. 90, § 2, and replaced by Minn.”
State Ex Rel. Harper v. Zegeer, 296 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 1982). · cites it 4× “Fearon, supra , that court determined "voluntarily drinking" applied only to those who consumed liquor by choice, not to alcoholics: However, on the evidence presented in this case, defendant was no more able to make a free choice as to when or how much he would drink than a…”
State v. Johnson, 327 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 2× “Fearon held that a person suffering from chronic alcoholism could not be convicted of drunkenness under Minn.Stat. § 340.96 (1969) (later repealed), even though the drunkenness was self-induced.”
State v. Murphy, 152 N.W.2d 507 (Minn. 1967). · cites it 3× “It is asserted that defendant’s prior conviction of drunkenness in violation of § 340.96 precludes prosecution under the former statute since both violations allegedly grew out of the same conduct and the prosecution of one is a bar to the prosecution of the other within the…”
State v. Kooiman, 185 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. 1971). · cites it 2× “035 bars a *440 prosecution of a pending charge of criminal negligence after petitioner has been convicted of drunkenness in violation of § 340.96 when proof that petitioner was under the influence of intoxicating liquor is an important part of the state’s proposed case.”
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.