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

Minn. Stat. § 609.075 (2026)

Defenses; Intoxication, Reaction To Victim's Sexual Orientation Or Gender Identity

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

Subdivision 1.Intoxication as defense.

An act committed while in a state of voluntary intoxication is not less criminal by reason thereof, but when a particular intent or other state of mind is a necessary element to constitute a particular crime, the fact of intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining such intent or state of mind.

Subd. 2.Reaction to victim's sexual orientation or gender identity.

It is not a defense to a crime that the defendant acted based on the discovery of, knowledge about, or potential disclosure of the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1966–2023 · leading case: State v. Fleck, 810 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Fleck, 810 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2012). · cites it 18× “The issue presented is whether under Minn.Stat. § 609.075 (2010), a defendant is entitled to a voluntary intoxication jury instruction, when the State alleges an assault committed by the infliction of bodily harm (assault-harm).”
State v. Torres, 632 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 2001). · cites it 10× “" Implicit in the court's interpretation is the requirement that, before the trial court is required to instruct the jury on the intoxication defense, a defendant not only must raise, but must establish, his intoxication.”
State v. Bjergum, 771 N.W.2d 53 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 12× “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.”
City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 238 N.W.2d 851 (Minn. 1976). · cites it 8× “" [9] Section 609.075 represents a modification of the common-law rule that voluntary intoxication was never a defense to crime.”
State v. Wilson, 830 N.W.2d 849 (Minn. 2013). · cites it 6× “If this language creates a specific-intent requirement and if Wilson met the requirements for a voluntary intoxication jury instruction, an instruction in accordance with Minn.Stat. § 609.075 (2012) should have been given.”
State v. Provost, 490 N.W.2d 93 (Minn. 1992). · cites it 4× “Our statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.075, says "evidence of intoxication" may be taken into consideration on whether specific intent has been formed.”
State v. Austin, 788 N.W.2d 788 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “Was the evidence sufficient to support the district court’s conclusion that intoxication did not provide a defense to appellant’s actions under Minn.Stat. § 609.075 (2006)? ANALYSIS The first two issues require an interpretation of Minn.”
State v. Hannon, 703 N.W.2d 498 (Minn. 2005). · cites it 2× “Under Minn.Stat. § 609.075 (2004), “when a particular intent or other state of mind is a necessary element to constitute a particular crime, the fact of intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining such intent or state of mind.”
State v. Cole, 542 N.W.2d 43 (Minn. 1996). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 609.075 (1994) (emphasis added).”
State v. Buchanan, 431 N.W.2d 542 (Minn. 1988). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 609.075 (1986) provides that voluntary intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining whether a particular intent or state of mind existed at the relevant time.”
State v. Bouwman, 328 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 609.075 (1980). There are, however, significant evidentiary distinctions between "partial or relative insanity" and conditions such as intoxication, medication, epilepsy, infancy, or senility.”
State v. Bowers, 482 N.W.2d 774 (Minn. 1992). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 609.075 (1990) provides that "when a particular intent or other state of mind is a necessary element to constitute a particular crime, the fact of intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining such intent or state of mind.”
Show all 54 citing cases →
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.