State v. Fleck
2012 Minn. LEXIS 49
| Minn. | 2012Background
- Fleck stabbed his former girlfriend KW with a butcher knife in her Alexandria home; he had been drinking for days and had a blood alcohol level of 0.315 at hospital.
- Fleck was charged with second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon under Minn. Stat. § 609.222, referencing § 609.02(10) (assault-harm and assault-fear).
- District court instructed jurors on two assault forms: assault-fear (specific intent) and assault-harm (general intent); voluntary intoxication was instructed for assault-fear but not assault-harm.
- Jury found Fleck not guilty of assault-fear and guilty of assault-harm; he was sentenced to 27 months.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding the district court erred in omitting a voluntary intoxication instruction for assault-harm; Supreme Court reinstates Fleck’s conviction.
- Supreme Court clarifies that assault-harm is a general-intent crime and assault-fear is a specific-intent crime; voluntary intoxication applies to specific-intent crimes, not general-intent crimes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minn.Stat. § 609.075 applies to assault-harm. | Fleck: assault-harm is a specific-intent crime. | State: assault-harm is general-intent; intoxication not applicable. | Assault-harm is general-intent; no intoxication instruction required. |
| Whether assault-harm qualifies for voluntary intoxication instruction. | Fleck entitled due to specific-intent nature of assault-harm. | Statute limits intoxication defense to specific-intent crimes only. | Voluntary intoxication does not apply to assault-harm. |
| Whether the district court properly instructed on the two assault forms. | Court should give entitlements consistent with split forms. | Court correctly instructed only for assault-fear; assault-harm not subject. | Court’s instruction was proper; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lindahl, 309 N.W.2d 763 (Minn. 1981) (assault-harm general-intent analysis; focus on actual infliction of injury)
- State v. Edrozo, 578 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. 1998) (assault is a specific-intent crime in context of suppression impact)
- State v. Vance, 734 N.W.2d 650 (Minn. 2007) (revised reasoning on assault intent; clarified general vs specific intent)
- State v. Torres, 632 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 2001) (voluntary intoxication defense to specific-intent crimes; statutory language)