Minnesota § 609.3469 VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION DEFENSE

Minnesota Statutes

§ 609.3469 — VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION DEFENSE

Minnesota § 609.3469

PartCRIMES; EXPUNGEMENT; VICTIMS

Ch. 609CRIMINAL CODE

This text of Minnesota § 609.3469 (VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION DEFENSE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Minn. Stat. § 609.3469 (2026).

Text

(a)The "knows or has reason to know" mental state requirement for violations of sections609.342to609.345involving a complainant who is mentally incapacitated, as defined in section609.341, subdivision 7, clause (2), involves specific intent for purposes of determining the applicability of the voluntary intoxication defense described in section609.075. This defense may be raised by a defendant if the defense is otherwise applicable under section609.075and related case law.

(b)Nothing in paragraph (a) may be interpreted to change the application of the defense to other crimes.

(c)Nothing in paragraph (a) is intended to change the scope or limitations of the defense or case law interpreting it beyond clarifying that the defense is available to a defendant described in paragraph (a).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(a) The "knows or has reason to know" mental state requirement for violations of sections609.342to609.345involving a complainant who is mentally incapacitated, as defined in section609.341, subdivision 7, clause (2), involves specific intent for purposes of determining the applicability of the voluntary intoxication defense described in section609.075. This defense may be raised by a defendant if the defense is otherwise applicable under section609.075and related case law.
(b) Nothing in paragraph (a) may be interpreted to change the application of the defense to other crimes.
(c) Nothing in paragraph (a) is intended to change the scope or limitations of the defense or case law interpreting it beyond clarifying that the defense is available to a defendant described in paragraph (a).