State v. Mickens

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Fortman

    474 N.W.2d 401 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 11 times
    In Fortman, the court of appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the defendant's request for a voluntary intoxication instruction in the context of a second-degree assault crime.

    In State v. Mickens, the supreme court discussed the voluntary intoxication issue in light of specific and general intent crimes. 276 Minn. 343, 150 N.W.2d 30, 32 (1967). In dicta, the court noted:

  2. State v. Chounard

    216 N.W.2d 908 (Minn. 1974)   Cited 4 times
    Rejecting the defendant's argument that the district court should have interrogated him more thoroughly on the record because the plea hearing transcript showed that the defendant discussed the consequences of the plea with counsel

    We believe that this testimony was sufficient to demonstrate that defendant's acts were intentional and that his intoxication or "half-intoxication" did not render him incapable of forming any particular intent. See, State v. Johnson, 279 Minn. 209, 156 N.W.2d 218 (1968); State v. Mickens, 276 Minn. 343, 150 N.W.2d 30 (1967). Minn. St. 609.075 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."

  3. State v. Olson

    214 N.W.2d 777 (Minn. 1974)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that defendant's blood alcohol content of .29 did not negate his ability to form the intent to commit assault with a dangerous weapon

    Minn. St. 609.075 reads: "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." We have not decided whether this statute applies to assault cases — see, State v. Mickens, 276 Minn. 343, 150 N.W.2d 30 (1967) — or, if so, whether the statute's use of the permissive "may" means that the fact-finder need not consider such evidence. Affirmed.

  4. State v. Ott

    291 Minn. 72 (Minn. 1971)   Cited 23 times
    Stating that while the intent of the actor is the “focal point” for the intent inquiry, the “ordinary effect upon others of the acts alleged to constitute the crime may naturally be taken into account to determine intent”

    Recent case law does not support a holding that physical harm is a requirement to convict under Minn. St. 609.225, subd. 2. In State v. Mickens, 276 Minn. 343, 150 N.W.2d 30, we sustained a conviction for aggravated assault in violation of Minn. St. 1967, § 609.225, subd. 2. The facts were essentially that the defendant had pointed a gun at two strangers, forcing them to lie on the floor of a garage while he took an airport limousine.

  5. State v. Roberts

    156 N.W.2d 760 (Minn. 1968)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that failure of defense counsel to interpose a particular defense is not ineffective assistance when, on the record, the defense has no merit

    Certainly failure of defense counsel to interpose defenses, such as that of self-defense, which on the record would have been without merit does not constitute inadequate representation. See, State v. Mathiasen, 273 Minn. 372, 141 N.W.2d 805; cf. State v. Mickens, 276 Minn. 343, 150 N.W.2d 30; State v. Blankenship, 277 Minn. 32, 151 N.W.2d 410; see, also, State v. Ferraro, 277 Minn. 204, 152 N.W.2d 183; State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57, 139 N.W.2d 785; State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90, 151 N.W.2d 769; State ex rel. Adams v. Rigg, 252 Minn. 283, 89 N.W.2d 898, certiorari denied, 358 U.S. 899, 79 S.Ct. 224, 3 L. ed. 2d 149; State ex rel. Peterson v. Tahash, 260 Minn. 192, 109 N.W.2d 328; State ex rel. Alm v. Tahash, 261 Minn. 242, 111 N.W.2d 458. No duty rested upon the trial court herein to refuse to take defendant's plea of guilty or to enter a plea of not guilty on his behalf, since defendant at no time denied his guilt or suggested a valid defense.

  6. State ex rel. Oney v. Tahash

    152 N.W.2d 526 (Minn. 1967)   Cited 2 times

    On this record it would have been unpersuasive for either purpose. Minn. St. 609.075; State ex rel. Hastings v. Bailey, 263 Minn. 261, 116 N.W.2d 548; State v. Mickens, 276 Minn. 343, 150 N.W.2d 30. State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90, 151 N.W.2d 769.