97%(67)65 out of 67 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 2 pages.
a.You think that both charges are valid, reasoning that if the defendant intended to do bodily harm to the victimby assaulting her, then he must also have intended by the assault to cause her fear of that harm.b.You think that the charge of assault with intent to do harm (assault-harm) is valid, but find you have not receivedenough information yet to assess whether the charge of assault-fear would be equally valid.This particular case occurred in a state where assault charges are divided into assault-harm and assault-fear, which are considered different. Under this state’s statutes, voluntary intoxication applies to assault-fear offenses as specific-intent crimes, but not to assault-harm offenses as general-intent crimes. Donald has chosen to use his intoxication at the time of the assault as a defense.Let’s review a few concepts before you make another decision about this scene.According to what your textbook says about the case of State v. Fleck (2012), how could you apply the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision to the scenario above?a.Donald’s intoxication defense would apply to both charges, i.e., assault-harm plus assault-fear.b.Donald’s intoxication defense does not apply because his state’s laws differ from Minnesota’s.c.