Cited by

-79 (Minn. App. 2017) (emphasis added).

Hunter argues that the district court plainly erred because reading the jury the justifiable-intentional-taking-of-life instruction rather than the general self-defense instruction is inappropriate when a defendant claims that “death was not the intended result.”

“The Minnesota Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that it is error to provide the justifiable- taking-of-life instruction, instead of the general self-defense instruction, when the defendant asserts self-defense but claims that the [victim’s] death was not the intended result.”

An erroneous jury instruction “does not merit a new trial if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

1(3) (2020); (quoting Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd.

1(3) (2020); d 175, 178 (Minn. App. 2017).

We observed in State v. Pollard that “[t]he Minnesota Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that it is error to provide the justifiable-taking-of-life instruction, instead of the general self-defense instruction, when the defendant asserts self-defense but claims that the death was not the intended result.”

officer pushed defendant’s friend); –36 (Minn. 1978) (victim fired shots); (victim hit defendant with umbrella); (victim punched and kicked defendant); (victim grabbed and kicked defendant); (victim tried to hit and strangle defendant); Soukup, d at 427 (victim in fistfight with defendant); (victim brandished baseball bat), rev. denied (Minn. June 25, 1990)

Minnesota law “mandate[s] that the general self -defense instruction be given in cases where the defendant claims the death was an unintended or accidental consequence of actions taken in defense of self.” (same); CRIMJIG 7.06, n.1 (“ [The justifiable-taking-of-life instruction] should be given only when the death was intentional.

1(3) (2018); d 175, 178 (Minn. App. 2017).

“The Minnesota Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that i t is error to provide the justifiable-taking-of-life instruction, instead of the general self -defense instruction, when the defendant asserts self-defense but claims that the [victim’s] death was not the intended result.” State v. Pollard , , 179 (Minn. App. 2017) ( -44 (Minn. 2012); - 33 (Minn. 1998); State v. Robinson , -3 (Minn. 1995); ).

State v. Pollard , (citation omitted).

Fry argues the justifiable-taking-of-life self -defense instruction was not appropriate because, it is error to give this instruction in a case in which the defendant argues he lacked the intent to kill, as Fry argued here.

4 ” Specifically, Daniels ’s motion requested relief because (1) the appellate courts failed to follow precedent in addressing his appeal, ( 2) his “trial assistance and appellate counsel [made] errors,” (3) his due process rights were violated by using an improper self -defense instruction, and (4)

Minnesota law “clearly mandat[es] that the general self-defense instruction be given in cases where the defendant claims the death was an unintended or accidental consequence of actions taken in defense of self.” d 130, 143-44 (Minn. 2012) (concluding that the justifiable -taking-of-life instruction was given in error when the defendant’s defense was that the death was unintended).

at 413; -79 (Minn. App. 2017).

State v. Pollard , (collecting cases); see also State v. Dolbeare , (Mi nn.

Minnesota law “clearly mandat[es] that the gene ral self-defense instruction be given in cases where the defendant claims the death wa s an unintended or accidental consequence of actions taken in defense of self.”

[a] justifiable-taking-of-life jury instruction[] when the defendant asserts self-defense and claims the resulting death was accidental.” d 175, 176 (Minn. App. 2017).