The Supreme Court of Minnesota clarified the standard for determining whether a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense and defense of others. Applying the clarified standard, the Court held that the district court erred by not providing the requested jury instructions and that the defendant is entitled to a new trial. 

Background 

The State charged Robert Lee Baker III, with, inter alia, one count of second-degree intentional murder in the shooting death of Maurice Anderson. Evidence adduced at Baker’s jury trial revealed that Baker’s girlfriend drove both of them to a nearby hotel to pick up a female friend of Baker’s girlfriend. While the three of them were seated in the car, two men jumped into the vehicle with guns pointed at Baker’s head and at his girlfriend’s head. The robbers ordered the girlfriend to drive to another location and park in the street. The robbers then took items from Baker and his girlfriend, including Baker’s keys, wallet containing over $2,000, and his girlfriend’s purse and cellphone. Before fleeing the crime scene, Baker overheard one of the robbers demand the girlfriend’s car keys.

As the two robbers walked away, Baker exited the car with his gun in his hand and told the robbers to “give [him his] shit back.” Baker estimated the robbers were approximately 30 feet away, and Baker himself was about seven feet from the car. The robbers, one of whom was later identified as Anderson, raised their guns toward Baker, and Baker then began firing. The two robbers ran, and Baker chased them. Anderson then bolted to the right as if to come back at Baker. Baker continued shooting and running toward Anderson. Baker was two to three feet from Anderson when Anderson fell to the ground.

Forensic evidence revealed that Baker had fired his .40 caliber Glock 16 times in as little as five seconds. Seven of those shots struck Anderson, killing him.

Prior to closing arguments, the defense requested a jury instruction on self-defense and defense of others. The district court declined the request, reasoning that after the robbery was over, Baker “re-engaged” when he exited the car with a gun. Consequently, the defense “failed to establish that Baker was not the initial aggressor because he re-engaged in contact with the victim” and failed to establish that “Baker did not have a reasonable means to retreat.” The jury convicted Baker of second-degree intentional murder, and the district court imposed a sentence of 438 months’ imprisonment.

Procedural History

The Court of Appeals (“COA”) affirmed but on different grounds. After concluding that the elements of self-defense relied on by the district court, viz., aggression and retreat, were “complex and somewhat muddled under the facts of this case,” the COA ruled that, as a matter of law, Baker did not use a reasonable amount of force, stating: “The claim of self-defense is sufficiently raised when a defendant creates a reasonable doubt as to whether the level of force was justified.” The COA determined that the district court did not err in refusing the requested instruction because no reasonable jury could find that Baker “used only the level of force necessary to prevent the harm feared.” State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. 2001). 

The Minnesota Supreme Court granted Baker’s petition for review.

Analysis 

The Court began its analysis by noting that the decision to give a jury instruction “lies within the discretion of the district court and will not be reversed but for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Hannon, 703 N.W.2d 498 (Minn. 2005). It added that it is an abuse of discretion for the district court “to refuse to give an instruction on the defendant’s theory of the case ‘if there is evidence to support it.’” State v. Kuhnau, 622 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. 2001). 

The Court noted that to be entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense or defense of others, the defendant bears the burden of providing evidence to the support the claim. State v. Johnson, 719 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. 2006). Once the burden is met, the defendant is entitled to the jury instruction, and the burden shifts to the State to disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not act in self-defense. State v. Trifiletti, 6 N.W.3d 79 (Minn. 2024). 

Baker argued that the COA used the wrong standard in determining whether he met his burden of producing evidence for the self-defense or defense of others jury instruction. That is, the COA stated that the “claim of self-defense is sufficiently raised when a defendant creates a reasonable doubt as to whether the level of force was justified.” The Court agreed with Baker that the COA did indeed use the incorrect standard. 

The Court announced that “[w]e take this opportunity to reiterate the standard for determining whether a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense or defense of others. The inquiry is ‘whether [the defendant] produced reasonable evidence to support [their] claim, and, if so, whether such evidence was sufficient to shift the burden to the state to disprove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Johnson. “A defendant’s burden is satisfied if they have presented ‘sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found [the] defendant acted in self-defense,’” according to the Court. State v. Gray, 456 N.W.2d 251 (Minn. 1990). In determining whether the defendant met their burden, courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant. Id. 

The Court then recounted the elements of self-defense, as follows: “(1) The absence of aggression or provocation on the part of the defendant; (2) the defendant’s actual and honest belief that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; (3) the existence of reasonable grounds for that belief; and (4) the absence of a reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid danger.” State v. Basting, 572 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. 1997).

Additionally, while not officially an element of a self-defense claim or a claim of defense of others, the “degree of force” requirement is part of the defense and means that the “degree of force used in self-defense must not exceed that which appears to be necessary to a reasonable person under the circumstances.” Id. The Court explained that when the burden shifts to the State to disprove a self-defense or defense of others claim, it may disprove the asserted claim by disproving any of the four elements or by proving that the degree of force used was unreasonable. Therefore, in meeting their burden, the defendant must provide evidence “from which a reasonable juror could find that the degree of force used was reasonable,” the Court stated. 

Self-defense and defense of others are based on the same statutory language. See Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1(3) (2022) (authorizing reasonable force “when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person”). Although they “parallel each other,” State v. Richardson, 670 N.W.2d (Minn. 2003), the Court noted that “as to the fourth element—the duty to retreat—for a claim of defense of others ‘a defendant must subjectively believe that the person in peril has no reasonable possibility of safe retreat, and that belief must be objectively reasonable based on the information available to the defendant at the time that they use force to defend the person in peril.’” State v. Valdez, 12 N.W.3d 191 (Minn. 2024). 

Turning to the present case, the Court stated that the question it must answer is whether Baker met his burden for a jury instruction based on the proper standard just discussed. In making this determination, the evidence must be viewed “in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion,” according to the Court. Turnage v. State, 708 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. 2006); see also State v. Boitnott, 443 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 1989) (“[i]n keeping with the presumption of innocence, trial courts should resolve all doubts as to the legitimacy of a self-defense claim in favor of the defendant”).

The State did not dispute that Baker presented enough evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that he had a real and honest belief that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm or death or that he had reasonable cause for that belief. However, the State did dispute whether Baker provided sufficient evidence that he was not the initial aggressor, that he lacked a reasonable means to retreat, and that the degree of force used was reasonable. 

First, the Court addressed the issue of whether Baker was the initial aggressor. It recited the evidence he presented regarding this element: (1) two assailants entered his vehicle and stole personal property at gunpoint, (2) when they were about 30 feet from the vehicle, he exited and demanded the return of his property, and (3) he was in possession of a handgun when he exited.

The Court stated that there was no dispute that Baker “re-engaged” with the victim when he exited the vehicle, but if the robbery was “ongoing,” he “was entitled to reasonably resist the robbery,” the Court explained. See Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1(4) (2022) (providing that a person may use reasonable force to resist the trespass upon their personal property). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Baker, the Court determined that the robbery was “ongoing” when he exited the vehicle demanding the return of his property. See United States v. Pate, 932 F.2d 736 (8th Cir. 1991) (stating that the escape phase is part of the robbery). Thus, the Court concluded that Baker provided sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that he was not the initial aggressor. 

Next, the Court turned to the duty to retreat and the relevant facts presented by Baker: (1) while standing about seven feet from the vehicle, he demanded that the assailants return the stolen property, (2) in response, both assailants raised their guns while about 30 feet from the vehicle, and (3) two occupants in the vehicle were in the assailants’ line of fire. Based on the evidence presented by Baker, the Court concluded that a jury could reasonably conclude that he did not have a reasonable opportunity to retreat and that it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that the two occupants had no reasonable means of retreat. 

Finally, the Court analyzed whether Baker presented sufficient evidence that he used a reasonable degree of force. The evidence in his favor on this issue include: (1) Baker had just been robbed at gunpoint, (2) Baker was faced with two assailants who raised their guns at him, (3) two occupants in the vehicle were in the assailants’ line of fire, (4) it was a chaotic scene in which it might have appeared to Baker that the victim was going to run toward him but then “bolted off,” (5) evidence presented that the shooting could have occurred in about five seconds, (6) Baker claimed he stopped shooting once the victim dropped to the ground, and (7) Baker was surprised that so many of his shots hit the victim. The Court noted that “whether Baker used a reasonable degree of force is a close call,” adding that a jury could go either way on this question. But that fact supports the determination that he provided sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury “could” conclude that he used a reasonable degree of force, the Court explained. In fact, the reasonableness of the degree of force used “is a quintessential question for a jury,” the Court stated. See Glowacki. Thus, the Court concluded that the jury should determine the reasonableness of the force used by Baker. 

Conclusion

The Court ruled that Baker met his burden of providing sufficient evidence to support his claims of self-defense and defense of others. Thus, the Court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for jury instructions on those claims. 

Additionally, the Court concluded that the error was not harmless. “Failure to instruct the jury on a defendant’s defense when the evidence warrants it requires a new trial unless it can be said ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no significant impact on the verdict.’” State v. Pendleton, 567 N.W.2d 265 (Minn. 1997). Because the jury was not provided instructions on self-defense or defense of others, “a jury following the law would have been required to return a guilty verdict even if it believed [Baker] was acting in self-defense,” according to the Court. Johnson. Therefore, the Court ruled that the error was prejudicial and entitled Baker to a new trial.

Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the COA and remanded for a new trial. See: State v. Baker, 13 N.W.3d 401 (Minn. 2024).  

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case