Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 609.015 (2026)
Scope And Effect
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§
Subdivision 1.Common law crimes abolished.
Common law crimes are abolished and no act or omission is a crime unless made so by this chapter or by other applicable statute, but this does not prevent the use of common law rules in the construction or interpretation of the provisions of this chapter or other statute. Crimes committed prior to September 1, 1963, are not affected thereby.
§
Subd. 2.Applicability.
Unless expressly stated otherwise, or the context otherwise requires, the provisions of this chapter also apply to crimes created by statute other than in this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1984–2017 · leading case: State v. Soto, 378 N.W.2d 625 (Minn. 1985).
State v. Soto, 378 N.W.2d 625 (Minn. 1985). “Other states of the union have abolished common law crimes either by statute or constitution, and have provided that no act or omission constitutes a crime unless defined by statute.”
State v. Nelson, 842 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. 2014). “Instead of discussing the rules of statutory construction, the majority leaps directly to the common law rule of lenity.”
State v. Mauer, 741 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. 2007). “” Minn.Stat. § 609.015, subd. 2 (2006). We can see no reason why either of these exceptions applies to the use of "knowing or with reason to know” in the child pornography statute.”
State v. Aarsvold, 376 N.W.2d 518 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “Minn. Stat. § 609.015 , subd. 1 (1984); State v.”
State v. Moore, 431 N.W.2d 565 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “Minn.Stat. § 609.015. Since the legislature intended to make the possession and/or distribution of cocaine base a more severe crime than possession and/or distribution of cocaine, it was incumbent on the legislature to define cocaine base and insert the proper terminology in §§…”
State v. Mikulak, 903 N.W.2d 600 (Minn. 2017). “The majority argues that Minn. Stat. § 609.02 , subd. 9(5), is “specifically limited to the criminal code.”
State v. Hough, 585 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1998). “See Minn.Stat. § 609.015 (1996) (abolishing common law crimes but allowing common law rules of statutory construction); see also State v.”
State v. Serstock, 390 N.W.2d 399 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “Minn.Stat. § 609.015, subd. 1 (1984). Section 609.”
In Re the Welfare of D.L.K., 381 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. 1986). “Minn.Stat. § 609.015, subd. 1 (1984). Where the language of a statute is clear and free from all ambiguity, “the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.”
Employers Ass'n v. United Steelworkers of Am., 803 F. Supp. 1558 (D. Minnesota 1992). “See Minn.Stat. § 609.015(2) (1987). 7 . See Midwest Motor Express v.”
State v. Skapyak, 702 N.W.2d 331 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). “” The state argues that the definitions in chapter 609, the criminal code, apply to offenses contained in chapter 152, the controlled-substances chapter, because Minn.Stat. § 609.015, subd. 2 (2002) provides, “[u]n-less expressly stated otherwise, or the context otherwise…”
State v. Sutterfield, 347 N.W.2d 295 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). “Since there are no common law crimes in this state under Minn.Stat. § 609.015, subd. 1 (1982), the only issue the trial court had jurisdiction to adjudicate was whether defendant violated Minn.”
— Minn. Stat. § 609.015(2) — 1 case
Employers Ass'n v. United Steelworkers of Am., 803 F. Supp. 1558 (D. Minnesota 1992). “See Minn.Stat. § 609.015(2) (1987). 7 . See Midwest Motor Express v.”
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.