Cited by

(quotation omitted); State v. Radke , ( stating that t he state need only disprove one of the self-defense elements).

(quotation omitted); (“ [T]he [s]tate need only disprove .

would have been different.”

A prosecutor “must refrain from making statements that will inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury,” Duncan, d at 556, but is entitled to use “reasonable and descriptive” language to convey the state’s version of the facts of a case

State v. Radke , (citations omitted).

(noting that the state only needs to disprove one element of self-defense).

(concluding that the defendant’s self-defense claim failed because the State disproved that the defendant was not the initial aggressor), with Basting, d at 286 (concluding that the district court did not err when it found that the defendant did not act in self-defense in part because it

See State v. Radke , - 25 (Minn. 2012) (rejecting defendant’s argument that the deceased was the aggressor because he had a shotgun when he arrived at the defendant’s location).

Once a defendant meets their burden of producing evidence to support a self-defense claim, the state must “disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the elements of self- defense.”

The state “need only disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the elements of self- defense.”

-27 (Minn. 2012) (stating that the defendant could not demonstrate prejudice stemming from his claimed Brady violation because “the evidence in question was not admissible”); d 498, 506 (Minn. 1985) (finding discovery violation harmless because most of the

The state “need 11 only disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the elements of self-defense.”

“Although a defendant who is the first aggressor ordinarily is not entitled to claim self- defense, the right to self-defense will be revived if the defendant actually and in good faith withdraws from the conflict and communicates that withdrawal to the victim.” n.3 (Minn. 2012) ( (holding that “communicat[ing] that withdrawal” may be done “expressly or impliedly”)).

CS-2 [and] had no reasonable grounds to believe either he or his sister was in imminent danger.”)

The “state need only disprove beyond a r easonable doubt at least one of the elements of self -defense.” State v. Radke

Appellate courts “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.”

2 “[A] defendant’s conviction generally will not be reversed under Brady or Rule 9.01 unless the defendant also shows that the state’s violation prejudiced his defense.” (describing prejudice as one of the elements of a successful Brady claim); 2 Although Manila did not refer to Rule 9.03 in his brief or to the district court, we may consider its application because we have a responsibility “to decid

(“[T]he [s]tate need only disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the elements of self-defense.”).

-25 (Minn. 2012) (concluding defendant “was the aggressor w ho provoked the even ts leading to [the victim’s] death” 7 because defendant traveled to victim’s home with a loaded rifle and did not attempt to diffuse the situation before shooting victim).6 Still Boder argues that even if he and Peterson were th

d 316, 326 (Minn. 2012).

To establish prejudice, a defendant must show “ a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the outcome of the trial would have been dif ferent.” .

at 216; see also State v. Radke , (holding that, to establish prejudice under Brady, “the defendant must show a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the outcome of the trial would have been different”).

see State v. Radke , 8 (Minn. 2012) (finding no error in the district court’s denial of a heat -of-passion jury instruction when “there was no rational basis upon which a jury could have found [the defendant] acted in the subjective heat of passion”).

If the state fails to meet its burden, an appellate court then “must decide whether the error seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

If the state fails to meet its burden, an appellate court then “must decide whether the er ror seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

d 316, 328 (Minn. 2012).

This contradicts the clear rule that a prosecutor cannot refer to evidence outside of the record in closing argument, d 225, 237 (Minn. 2005), and cannot use impeachment evidence as s ubstantive evidence in closing, State v. Radke

(concluding that where the state disproved one element of a self -defense claim, any ev idence bearing on the other three elements “would not have changed the outcome” of trial).

Appellate courts, like district courts, determine whether a jury instruction is warranted by “view[ing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.”

1(2) (2016); (identifying the required elements of a valid self-defense claim).

The law is well settled that the state “need only disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the elements of self-defense.” d 316, 324 (Minn. 2012).

State v. Radke , , 328 (Minn. 2012).

But Loving is quoting Johnson, which states that the “state has the burden of disproving one or more of [the self-defen se] elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” Johnson, d at 629 (quoting State v. Basting , ); (stating that to disprove a self-defense claim, the “State need only disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the elements of sel f-defense”).