Cited by

See, e.g., State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 223, 232 (1865) (“Where the party has not retreated from or attempted to shun the combat, but has as in this case unnecessarily entered into it, his act is not one of self-defense.”); (declining to extend the castle doctrine where it “might encourage, rather than discourage, unnecessary and potentially deadly confrontations”); d 29, 37 (Minn. 2024) (“[W]e have described the public policy interests underlying the judicially created duty to retreat .

(stating self-defense claim requires evidence of defendant’s honest belief of imminent danger, use of reasonable force to resist danger, and inability to retreat).

“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 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.”

“[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.”

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.”

(analyzing the 2012 statute).

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

[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

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).

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 , .

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

(citing Basting, d at 286).

16 necessary and uses only the level of force reasonably necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared.”

(citing Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd.

“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 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.”

“[U]nder the so-called ‘castle doctrine,’ a person need not retreat from his or her home before acting in self-defense.” (footnote omitted).

The supreme court has described the statutory authorization to use reasonable force to resist such an offense as a “right.”

bodily harm.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

d 255, 258 (Minn. 2014) (requiring a person to retreat if reasonably possible before acting in self-defense).

she reasonably believes that force is necessary and uses only the level of force reasonably necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared.”

The amount of force used must be that which is “reasonably necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared.” d 255, 258 (Minn. 2014).

(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

“ Generally, the law requires that a person retreat if reasonably possible before acting in self -defense.” , 258 (Minn. 2014).

(d 281, 285-86 (Minn. 1997)).

1(3) (bodily harm, as interpreted by caselaw, ), 609.065 (great bodily harm or deat h) (2018).

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

bodily harm; [and] (3) the existence of reasonable grounds for that belief.” 7 (quotation omitted).

“[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

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).

“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.”

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).