Defense of Others and Duty to Retreat Reviewed by MN Supreme Court

Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed whether the defense of another requires a duty to retreat in State v. Valdez. Courts have long recognized self-defense as an affirmative defense in violent cases, such as assault or murder. When defending another person from being attacked, there is the defense-of-another defense, if you use force. However, included in most self-defense claims is a duty to retreat. That is, if someone who is claiming self-defense could have retreated to safety before using force against another, then they need to do so, otherwise self-defense is not available, subject to exceptions such as being in your home. In defense-of-another claims, the question is whether the person in peril has a duty to retreat, which the court in Valdez decided “a defendant must subjectively believe the person in peril has no reasonable possibility of safe retreat, and that belief must be objectively reasonable…”

Deciding whether someone can safely retreat to avoid an attack can be an ultra-quick decision to make. To ease the analysis, the court used the good ‘ole “objectively reasonable” standard to gauge the person’s belief at the time.

In Valdez, the defendant was convicted of second-degree unintentional felony murder. He fatally shot an unarmed man who was allegedly beating and choking his stepbrother. At trial, the district court judge instructed the jury that the defendant had a duty to retreat before using force in defense of his stepbrother and for self-defense of himself. The jury found the defendant guilty of second-degree unintentional murder but not guilty of second-degree intentional murder. The court of appeals reversed the district court’s decision to instruct the jury that the defendant had a duty to retreat in defense of another. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed, held the error not to be harmless, and remanded for a new trial.

In its analysis, the Minnesota Supreme Court laid out the four elements of self-defense to consider whether a defendant’s use of force was reasonable:

  • the absence of aggression or provocation on the part of the defendant;
  • the defendant’s actual and honest belief that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm;
  • the existence of reasonable grounds for that belief; and
  • the absence of reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid the danger.

When defendants meet the burden of presenting evidence to support self-defense, the prosecution bears the burden to disprove at least one element beyond a reasonable doubt. In defense of others, it is more about whether the person in need of help can reasonably safely retreat under the circumstances, because they are the ones in need of defending.

Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense attorney and DWI lawyer in the Twin Cities and the state of Wisconsin. Super Lawyers named him a Super Lawyer for the past three years and a Rising Star in the preceding six years. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. DWI Lawyer Minneapolis MN; Criminal Defense Lawyer Wisconsin; and Criminal Appeals Attorney Minnesota.