Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 609. CRIMINAL CODE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 609.01 (2026)

Name And Construction

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

Subdivision 1.Purposes.

This chapter may be cited as the Criminal Code of 1963. Its provisions shall be construed according to the fair import of its terms, to promote justice, and to effect its purposes which are declared to be:

(1) to protect the public safety and welfare by preventing the commission of crime through the deterring effect of the sentences authorized, the rehabilitation of those convicted, and their confinement when the public safety and interest requires; and

(2) to protect the individual against the misuse of the criminal law by fairly defining the acts and omissions prohibited, authorizing sentences reasonably related to the conduct and character of the convicted person, and prescribing fair and reasonable postconviction procedures.

Subd. 2.

[Repealed, 1983 c 216 art 1 s 76]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks, 864 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks, 864 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 8× “” Minn. Stat. § 609.01 , subd. 1(2) (2014).”
State v. Nelson, 842 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. 2014). · cites it 2× “While common law rules of construction survive under Minnesota’s criminal code, see Minn.”
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez, 844 N.W.2d 519 (Minn. 2014). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 609.01, subd. 1(1) (2012). The Legislature clearly intended Minn.”
State v. Serstock, 402 N.W.2d 514 (Minn. 1987). · cites it 2× “3 We believe this approach will best assure that the official misconduct statute satisfies the general principles of the Criminal Code which seek to “protect the individual against the misuse of the criminal law by fairly defining the acts and omissions prohibited * Minn.Stat. §…”
State v. Cox, 798 N.W.2d 517 (Minn. 2011). “§ 609.01 (2010) (emphasis added). We have held that issuing a dishonored check is a lesser-included offense of theft by check.”
State v. Gebeck, 635 N.W.2d 385 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 609.01, subd. 1 (2000). In carrying out these general principles, we must recognize that there is a need for testing and a need to ensure that the illegal alcohol concentration fairly relates to the alleged driving.”
State v. Bonafide, 457 N.W.2d 211 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 609.01. The goals of mental commitment proceedings are not entirely symmetrical in that they are not intended to deter.”
State v. Christy Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 609.01, subd. 1 (1982). The legislature has not expressly excluded corporations from criminal liability and, therefore, we take its intent to be that corporations are to be considered persons within the meaning of the Code in the absence of any clear indication to…”
In Re the Welfare of C.P.K., 615 N.W.2d 832 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 609.01, subd. 1(1) (1998). Regulation of explosive and incendiary devices furthers the state’s interest in public safety.”
State of Minnesota v. Juanel Anthony Mikulak (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “This conclusion is consistent with general principles set forth in the Minnesota Criminal Code of 1963, which is codified as Minn. Stat. §§ 609.01 -.912 (2014).3 The Criminal Code provides that “[w]hen criminal intent is an element of a crime in [the Code], such intent is…”
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. §§ 609.01 , subd. 10 (defining assault as including the intentional infliction of bodily harm), .”
State of Minnesota v. John Ishmael Bradley, III (2024). “Laws 1185 , 1188 (codified as amended at Minn. Stat. § 609.01 , et al. (2022)). Before this, Minnesota’s criminal code contained numerous examples of the word “degree” consistent with differentiating between the severity of a particular offense.”
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.