Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Devens, 852 N.W.2d 255.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“In Minnesota, a person may act in self-defense if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary and uses only the level of force reasonably necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared.”
-
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S. V. W., Child.
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“In Minnesota, a person may act in self-defense if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary and uses only the level of force reasonably necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared.”
- Samuel David Berg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
Samuel David Berg v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[A] person may act in self-defense if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary and uses only the level of force reasonably necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Although a person ordinarily has a duty to retreat if reasonably possible, the castle doctrine provides that “a person need not retreat from his or her home before acting in self-defense.”
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(analyzing the 2012 statute).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A self-defense claim requires that the claimant have used “only the level of force reasonably 5 necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared.” State v. Devens
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
[T]he 10 castle doctrine extends to “a house, an apartment or part of a structure where defendant lives and where others are ordinarily excluded—the antithesis of which is routine access to or use of an area by strangers.” Devens, at 259 (citing People v. Aiken, 4 N.Y.3d 324, 79
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
bodily harm; (3) the existence of reasonable grounds for that belief; and (4) the absence of a reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid the danger.” (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When employing force in self-defense, a person may only use “the level of force reasonably necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared.” State v. Devens , .
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
presented itself.” in which the court explicitly declined to extend the right of those in their homes not to retreat before acting in self-defense because such an extension “might encourage, rather than discourage, unnecessary and potentially deadly confrontations.” And the legal authority for this premise is not
- State of Minnesota v. Julian Daniel Valdez Minn. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Julian Daniel Valdez
Minn. 2024
(citing Basting, d at 286).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
16 necessary and uses only the level of force reasonably necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared.”
- State of Minnesota, Minn. 2024
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(citing Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd.
- State of Minnesota v. Crystal Ann Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Crystal Ann Olson
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“In Minnesota, a person may act in self-defense if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary and uses only the level of force reasonably necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared.”
- State of Minnesota v. Kenwan Deshawn Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Kenwan Deshawn Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Jawan Contrail Carroll Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Jawan Contrail Carroll
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“In Minnesota, a person may act in self-defense if [they] reasonably believe[] that force is necessary and use[] only the level of force reasonably necessary to prevent the 5 bodily harm feared.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[U]nder the so-called ‘castle doctrine,’ a person need not retreat from his or her home before acting in self-defense.” (footnote omitted).
- State of Minnesota v. Julian Daniel Valdez Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-
State of Minnesota v. Julian Daniel Valdez
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The supreme court has described the statutory authorization to use reasonable force to resist such an offense as a “right.”
-
Minn. 2023
bodily harm.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).
- In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. K. B.-W., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 255, 258 (Minn. 2014) (requiring a person to retreat if reasonably possible before acting in self-defense).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
she reasonably believes that force is necessary and uses only the level of force reasonably necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared.”
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- Matthew Prescott Beale, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The amount of force used must be that which is “reasonably necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared.” d 255, 258 (Minn. 2014).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(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); State v. Bland, 3
-
Rami Hussein Hassan, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“ Generally, the law requires that a person retreat if reasonably possible before acting in self -defense.” , 258 (Minn. 2014).
-
Doran-CSM SE I LLC, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(d 281, 285-86 (Minn. 1997)).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
1(3) (bodily harm, as interpreted by caselaw, ), 609.065 (great bodily harm or deat h) (2018).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A district court generally has broad discre tion in crafting jury instructions, but “a jury instruction is erroneous if it materially misstates the law.” State v. Devens
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
bodily harm; [and] (3) the existence of reasonable grounds for that belief.” 7 (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[A] person may act in self - defense if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary and uses only the level of force reasonably necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared.” State v. Devens
- Eliseo Nmn Hernandez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The elements of self -defense are “(1) the absence of aggression or provocation on the part of the defendant; (2) the defendant’s actual and honest belief that he or she was in imminent danger of bodily harm; [and] (3) the existence of reasonable grounds for that belief.” (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“In Minnesota, a person may act in self-defense if he or she r easonably believes that force is necessary and uses only the level of force reasonably necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A self -defense claim has four elements: (1) an absence of aggression or provocation by the party claiming self -defense; (2) an actual and honest belief that “imminent danger of bodily harm” would result; (3) a reasonable basis for this belief; and (4) a lack of reasonable means to retreat or avoid the physical conflict.1 (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
7 “In Minnesota, a person may act in self-defense if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary and uses only the level of force reasonably necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared.”
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019