State v. Austin
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge.
Appellant James Jean Austin challenges his conviction of second-degree criminal sexual conduct and burglary, arguing that the state did not establish the intent element of the criminal-sexual-conduct charge. Because we conclude that the doctrine of transferred intent applies to establish the intent element and that appellant possessed the requisite intent despite any alleged intoxication, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant spent most of July 29, 2008, with his uncle and his cousin in the uncle’s apartment. Appellant consumed about two dozen 12-ounce cans of malt liquor and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- State v. MerrillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- State v. ColvinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- State v. VickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- State v. StevensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- People v. JacksonColorado Court of Appeals · 2018
- State v. WentheCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
- Daniel Justin Olson v. State of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
- John Fasan Atambo, Relator v. Commissioner of HealthCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Timothy Francis HoltCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.