Misdemeanor Attempt to Evade/Elude Police is a General Intent Crime

State v. Wilson,  Minn.Ct.App., 5/7/2012.  A jury convicted Ms. Wilson of misdemeanor attempting to evade or elude a police officer by some means other than fleeing in a motor vehicle); she was apparently running from an officer who suspected that the fellow she was with had just stabbed a guy in a bar.  At trial, she wanted an instruction on voluntary intoxication.  The trial court said, no, that the offense was not a specific intent offense and so intoxication was not an available defense.

The court of appeals agreed with the trial court. 

Now, fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle is a specific intent crime, State v. Johnson, 374 N.W.2d 285 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985). The difference derives from the wording of the fleeing statute which, conveniently, employs the phrase “with intent to”:

For purposes of this section, the term “flee” means to increase speed, extinguish motor vehicle headlights or taillights, refuse to stop the vehicle, or use other means with intent to attempt to elude a peace officer following a signal given by any peace officer to the driver of a motor vehicle.

. . . .

Whoever by means of a motor vehicle flees or attempts to flee a peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty, and the perpetrator knows or should reasonably know the same to be a peace officer, is guilty of a felony. . . .

Here’s what the evading/eluding subsection of the same statute that contains the fleeing “with intent to” phrase says:

Whoever, for the purpose of avoiding arrest, detention, or investigation, or in order to conceal or destroy potential evidence related to the commission of a crime, attempts to evade or elude a peace officer, who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty, by means of running, hiding, or by any other means except fleeing in a motor vehicle, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

[Italics added.]  The court of appeals narrowly (and literally) reads State v. Fleck, ___ N.W.2d. ___ (Minn. 2011) to make the absence of “with intent to” dispositive, form over substance.  Read about Fleck, here.  The court rejected the seemingly obvious argument that “for the purpose of” means the same thing as “with intent to”. 

Ms. Wilson has petitioned the supreme court for review.