In layman’s terms: In Minnesota you do not have a duty to retreat when using force to defend another.
Today the Minnesota State Supreme Court affirmed that a person may use force in defense of another without the duty to retreat.
In a case called State v. Valdez, the Supreme court found that the court of appeals correctly concluded that the district court’s erroneous instruction that respondent had a duty to retreat before acting in defense of his stepbrother was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also affirmed that Mr. Valdez requires a new trial.
The case stems from an incident wherein Julian Valdez was convicted of second-degree unintentional felony murder in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.19, subdivision 2(1) (2022), for fatally shooting an unarmed man who was allegedly beating and choking his stepbrother. Valdez pleaded not guilty and demanded a jury trial.
During the jury trial, the district court concluded that the duty to retreat would be included in instructions to the jury, and that the jury would need to find that the ability to retreat was not available to Valdez “because of danger.”
The jury found Valdez not guilty of second-degree intentional murder but guilty of second-degree unintentional felony murder. The district court convicted Valdez of that charge and sentenced him to 150 months in prison.
Valdez appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by instructing the jury that he had a duty to retreat before acting in defense of others and that this error was not harmless.
The court of appeals reversed Valdez’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. The State then petitioned the Supreme Court for a review of the case.
Under Minnesota law a person may use deadly force in self-defense, but is required to retreat if reasonably possible before acting in self-defense.
The Court admitted it had not previously considered the duty to retreat in the context of defending another. In its 18-page decision, the Court attempted to weigh the logic of the law against the scenario:
A defendant’s duty to retreat creates inherent tension with the statutory right to defend another. Even if a defendant can retreat, the person in need of help (the person in peril) may not be able to do so. Imposing a duty to retreat on the defendant in those circumstances would require the defendant to abandon the person in peril, defeating the very purpose of a defense-of-others claim.
Other state appellate courts have likewise concluded that it is not sensible to focus on a defendant’s own ability to retreat when they assert that they used force in defense of others and have instead reasoned that the focus should be on the person in peril’s ability to retreat.
Unfortunately, the Court still added a caveat that the person being defended must have tried to retreat as well:
To remedy this incompatibility, we conclude that a defendant’s use of force in defense of another to be reasonable, the person in peril must not have had a reasonable possibility of safe retreat.
The Court also added a rather difficult requirement that the person acting in defense of another must have fully assessed the situation, which is nearly impossible to do in life and death circumstances:
And we further hold that, to determine whether the person in peril had a reasonable possibility of safe retreat, the person in peril’s ability to retreat must be assessed from the perspective of the defendant.
Many states logically do not impose any kind of duty to retreat upon somebody being assailed. The Minnesota standard opens up future defendants to the endless second-guessing of jury and court about hypotheticals that might have occurred.
The court summarized thus:
In sum, to justifiably use force in defense of another under section 609.06, subdivision 1(3), 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.
While the case represents a victory for lawful self-defense, the Court finding puts a very narrow scope on its use case, one that will potentially have the chilling effect on defenders who might second guess their every move, even if morally correct.
