The Minnesota Supreme Court held that attempted first-degree assault-harm constitutes a valid crime under state law, reversing a divided court of appeals panel in *State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dawn Oliver*. The decision, filed December 10, 2025, resolves a legal question about whether Minnesota's attempt statute can apply to assault charges.
Justice Hennesy wrote for the majority, with Justices Gaïtas and Moore III dissenting. The case centered on Lisa Dawn Oliver's conviction for attempted first-degree assault-harm under Minnesota Statutes sections 609.17 (attempt) and 609.221, subdivision 1 (first-degree assault-harm).
Oliver challenged her conviction on two grounds. First, she argued that the Minnesota Legislature did not intend for the attempt statute to apply to assault offenses. Second, she contended that attempt is a specific-intent crime while first-degree assault-harm is a general-intent crime, creating an impermissible conflict between the required mental states.
The state countered that attempted first-degree assault-harm is a legally recognized crime under Minnesota law and that the intent elements of the two offenses do not conflict. The state was represented by Attorney General Keith Ellison's office and the Dakota County Attorney's Office, with Kathryn M. Keena serving as Dakota County Attorney and Todd P. Zettler as Assistant Dakota County Attorney.
Oliver was represented by the State Public Defender's Office, with Chief Appellate Public Defender Cathryn Middlebrook and Assistant State Public Defender John Donovan arguing her case.
The court of appeals had initially reversed Oliver's conviction, concluding that attempted first-degree assault-harm is not a valid crime under Minnesota law. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this analysis and reversed the appeals court's decision.
The Supreme Court's syllabus states clearly: "An attempt, charged under Minn. Stat. § 609.17, to commit first-degree assault-harm, Minn. Stat. § 609.221, subd. 1, is a valid crime under Minnesota law."
This ruling has implications for criminal prosecutions throughout Minnesota. First-degree assault-harm under Minnesota Statute section 609.221 involves causing great bodily harm to another person. The attempt statute, section 609.17, criminalizes efforts to commit crimes that fall short of completion.
The legal question at the heart of the case reflects broader debates in criminal law about the interaction between attempt liability and specific underlying offenses. Attempt crimes generally require proof that a defendant intended to commit the underlying offense and took substantial steps toward its completion.
The intent issue Oliver raised touches on fundamental criminal law principles. Specific intent crimes require proof that the defendant intended to bring about a particular result, while general intent crimes typically require only that the defendant intended to perform the prohibited act. Oliver argued this distinction made attempted first-degree assault legally impossible.
The Supreme Court's decision to reverse and remand suggests the justices rejected Oliver's arguments about legislative intent and conflicting mental states. The court concluded that Minnesota's attempt statute can properly apply to first-degree assault charges without creating legal inconsistencies.
The divided nature of the decision, with two justices dissenting, indicates this was not a straightforward legal question. The dissenting justices likely agreed with some aspects of Oliver's arguments or the court of appeals' original reasoning.
This case arose from Dakota County, located in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The involvement of the Attorney General's office alongside local prosecutors suggests the state viewed this as an important legal precedent worth defending at the highest court level.
The ruling provides clarity for prosecutors and defense attorneys handling similar cases throughout Minnesota. It confirms that defendants can be charged with attempted first-degree assault even when the actual assault is not completed, provided prosecutors can prove the required elements of both the attempt and the underlying assault charge.
The decision also affects how courts will instruct juries in future attempted assault cases. Jury instructions will need to clearly explain both the attempt elements and the first-degree assault elements without creating confusion about the different intent requirements.
For criminal defense attorneys, this ruling narrows potential challenges to attempted assault charges. The Supreme Court's rejection of the intent conflict argument means similar challenges in future cases are less likely to succeed.
The case was designated A23-1062 and represents the Supreme Court's resolution of an important question about the scope of Minnesota's criminal attempt statute. The remand to the lower court suggests further proceedings may be necessary to complete Oliver's case.
This decision joins other recent Minnesota Supreme Court rulings clarifying the boundaries of criminal liability under state law. It demonstrates the court's willingness to interpret attempt statutes broadly rather than limiting their application to specific categories of crimes.