The Judge Refused to Give a Self-defense Jury Instruction, Can I Appeal? A Minnesota Appeal Lawyer Explains

In criminal jury trials, the judge gives jury instructions to the jurors to give some guard rails to how the jury is supposed to reach their verdict. Many of the jury instructions are standard instructions that are given in almost every case. But there are some jury instructions that are only given if a party asks for it and the judge decides there is enough evidence for the jury instruction. Whether you can receive a self-defense instruction is an issue that the Minnesota Supreme Court has issued multiple opinions in the last several months. This blog post looks at the opinion released on November 13, 2024.

Initial aggressor aspect of self-defense

In State v. Baker, the district court refused to give the self-defense jury instruction. The defendant in the case had been robbed, attempted to take the property back at gunpoint when the robbers were 30 feet away, one of the robbers pulled a gun out, and the defendant shot the robber. The district court denied the defendant’s request for a self-defense in part because when the defendant tried to take the property back with a gun in hand, he was purportedly becoming an initial aggressor. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court disagreed. It could be inferred from the facts that when the robbers were only 30 feet away it was still part of the continuing offense of the robbery. It’s important to note the distinction that the Minnesota Supreme court was not saying as a matter of law that it was a continuing offense. But was instead saying that there was sufficient facts that the jury should have been given the opportunity to make the determination whether or not the defendant’s actions were in accord with self-defense.

The lower hurdle for a self-defense instruction

One of the most significant aspects of the State v. Baker decision for the development of law in Minnesota is that the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled State v. Soukup and at least 4 other precedential cases. In State v. Soukup and the cases that followed, the Minnesota Court of Appeals applied a more stringent standard including a “reasonable doubt standard” just for the defendant to present the self-defense instruction. In State v. Baker, the Supreme Court rejected this standard noting that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s standard actually is whether, “sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found [the] defendant acted in self-defense.” It’s not often that the Minnesota Supreme Court overrules previous precedential caselaw. But they did in State v. Baker to correct the errors the Court of Appeals had been committing in using a more stringent standard for accepting a self-defense jury instruction.

Conclusion

If you or a loved one were convicted where you were not given a jury instruction you wanted, you should contact a skilled appeals attorney. It’s important for you to act fast because generally the deadline to appeal felony and gross misdemeanor cases is 90 days; and 30 days for misdemeanors. Contact Jack Rice Defense if you want to appeal your case. (651) 447-7650

Peter Lindstrom

Peter is the head of the appellate and expungement departments at Jack Rice Defense. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a felony conviction because of the brief Peter drafted. He has successfully expunged cases involving challenging issues with DWI, felony, and violence against family member cases. At the district court level, he has tried two felony jury trials to verdict, and successfully dismissed a felony gun case on 4th amendment grounds. Peter is particularly known for his intelligence, creativity, and legal acumen.