Cited by

A notable exception to 8 the duty to retreat is the castle doctrine, “which provides that a person has no duty to retreat from their home before acting in self-defense.” d 191, 197 n.4 (Minn. 2024) ( (stating that defendant did not have duty to retreat before acting in self-defense because the shooting took place in upstairs bedroom of his home)).

He asserts that, because he and J.R. were inside the trailer at the time of the charged incident, 5 the district court’s instruction was erroneous under the “castle doctrine,” which “provides that a person has no duty to retreat from their home before acting in self-defense.” d 191, 197 n.4 (Minn. 2024) ( 629 (Minn. 2006), as “ rejecting a duty to retreat before acting in self-defense where the shooting occurred in the upstairs bedroom of the defendant’s home,” for the proposition that “early Mi

This is an objective test.”

“It is an abuse of the district court’s discretion to refuse to give an instruction on the defendant’s theory of the case ‘if there is evidence to support it.’ ” (d 552, 557 (Minn. 2001)).

(d 281, 285 (Minn. 1997)).

629 (Minn. 2006) (rejecting a duty to retreat before acting in self-defense where the shooting occurred in the upstairs bedroom of the defendant’s home); (noting that “early Minnesota caselaw rejected a duty to retreat in cases of self-defense occurring in one

( (internal quotation marks omitted).

(explaining that, once the defendant has offered evidence of self-defense, the burden shifts to the State to disprove the defendant’s self-defense claim).

“It is an abuse of the district court’s discretion to refuse to give an instruction on the defendant’s theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted).

“The defendant has the burden of going forward with evidence to support a claim of self-defense.” (quotation omitted).

“It is an abuse of the district court’s discretion to refuse to give an instruction on the defendant’s theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts focus on who was the “original aggressor in the incident.” d 619, 630 (Minn. 2006).

(victim said, “I’m 15 going to kill that [woman]”); (victim tried to punch defendant); –24 (Minn. 2006) (victim kicked and shot defendant); (victim hit defendant); (victim punched defendant); (victim kicked defendant in the head); State v. Carlso

(“It is an abuse of the district court’s discretion to refuse to give an instruction on the defendant’s theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.”).

See State v. Johnson , (discussing first element of self-defense in terms of whether defendant was the original aggressor).

d 619, 629 (Minn. 2006).

See State v. Johnson , -26 (Minn. 2006) (setting out the three lesser- included offenses of second-degree intentional murder).

Because appellant claimed self-defense, “[the] state has the burden of disproving one or more” elements of self-defense “beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Johnson , (quotation omitted ).