Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 238 N.W.2d 851.

39 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Tyson Joe Hinckley Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Tyson Joe Hinckley Minn. 2024
as “the best starting point” in evaluating the requirement to make a prima facie showing of mental illness.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 851, 856 (Minn. 1976) (recognizing four different kinds of involuntary intoxication ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-55 (Minn. 1976) (noting that voluntary intoxication is a defense only if a specific intent or purpose is an element of the charged offense); (noting that claim of temporary insanity caused by voluntary intoxication due to defendant’s use of alcohol or
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
9 In order to assert an involuntary-intoxi cation defense Kramer would have had to show that she became “unexpect edly intoxicated due to the ingestion of a medically prescribed drug.” Minneapolis v. Altimus , 306 Minn. 462, 469, (discussing the various forms of the involuntary-intoxication defense).
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The defense of involuntary intoxication has been accepted in Minnesota since the supreme court's decision in City of Minneapolis v. Altimus , 306 Minn. 462
State of Minnesota v. Clint Ryan Serrano Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clint Ryan Serrano Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The defense of involuntary intoxication is based on “an innocent mistake by the defendant about the character of the substance taken.” City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 306 Minn. 462, 469
State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
5 See City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 306 Minn. 462, 472 , (considering the “[djefen-dant’s evidence” when deciding whether the defendant introduced enough evidence to raise an involuntary intoxication defense).
State v. Wilson 814 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Wilson 814 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
v. Altimus, 306 Minn. 462 , cited in Fleck, d at 303 .
State v. Fleck 810 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2012
State v. Fleck 810 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2012
See, (explaining that to receive a voluntary intoxication defense, a defendant must be charged with a specific-intent crime); City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 306 Minn. 462, 466 , -55 (1976) (explaining that, “[t]he general rule in Minnesota is that voluntary intoxication is a defense to a criminal charge ...
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
oxication,” which is “intoxication grossly excessive in degree, given the amount of the intoxicant, to which the actor does not know he is susceptible,” and “innocent” intoxication, “when intoxication results from an innocent mistake by the defendant about the character of the substance taken, as when another person has tricked him into taking the liquor or drugs.” City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 306 Minn. 462, 468-69
State v. Bjergum 771 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bjergum 771 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 306 Minn. 462, 467
State v. Al-Naseer 734 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2007
State v. Al-Naseer 734 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2007
306 Minn. 462, 466 , d, 851, 855 (1976).
State v. McKeon 38 P.3d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
See City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 306 Minn. 462, 472 , 10 Minn. Dist.
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
(holding that “a defendant’s insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense”); (citing City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 306 Minn. 462 , ).
State v. Fortman 474 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Fortman 474 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Voluntary Intoxication The Minnesota Supreme Court has adopted the general rule that voluntary intoxication is a defense to a criminal charge “ * * * only if a specific intent or purpose is an essential element of the crime charged * * *.” City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 306 Minn. 462, 466 , -55 (1976).
Casci v. Commissioner of Public Safety 360 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Casci v. Commissioner of Public Safety 360 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Casci also contends that State v. Altimus, 306 Minn. 462 , supports his position.
State v. Johnson 327 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1982
State v. Johnson 327 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1982
However, defendant argues that the combined effect of two cases of this court— State v. Fearon, 283 Minn. 90 , and State v. Altimus, 306 Minn. 462 , —is that a chronic alcoholic’s intoxication is really involuntary intoxication and that therefore the defense of involuntary intoxication, which applies to all crimes, even general intent crimes, can be raised whenever a chronic alcoholic commits a crime while intoxicated.
State v. Larson 281 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1979
State v. Larson 281 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1979
See, e. g., City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 306 Minn. 462, 471
State v. Kjeldahl 278 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1979
State v. Kjeldahl 278 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1979
tly held: “The general rule in Minnesota is that voluntary intoxication is a defense to a criminal charge other than drunkenness only if a specific intent or purpose is an essential element of the crime charged and the trier of fact concluded that the defendant’s intoxication deprived him of the specific intent or purpose requisite to the alleged offense * * State, City of Minneapolis v. Aitimus, 306 Minn. 462, 466
State v. Clarken 260 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 1977
State v. Clarken 260 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 1977
The case on the availability of the defense of insanity induced by intoxication is State, City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 306 Minn. 462