State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-1201

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Anton Leo Schloegl,
Appellant.

Filed July 20, 2020
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Washington County District Court
File No. 82-CR-18-2947

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Peter J. Orput, Washington County Attorney, Nicholas A. Hydukovich, Assistant County
Attorney, Stillwater, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook Chief Appellate Public Defender, Anders J. Erickson, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Florey,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant challenges his conviction for threats of violence, arguing that the district
court committed reversible error by not providing a self-defense jury instruction. Because
appellant did not object to the absence of a self -defense jury instruction and has not met
his burden under the plain-error doctrine, we affirm.
FACTS
Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Anton Lee Schloegl in July 2018
with one count of threats of violence under Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd. 1 ( 2016). This
charge stemmed from an incident where appellant knocked on the door of a residence, told
the person who answered the door that appellant was going to “beat his ass,” and threatened
to kill that person . Appellant then ran to another residence. When confronted by family
members from the first residence , appellant threatened to kill an indivi dual and that
individual’s entire family while holdin g a small, wooden baseball bat. The state later
amended the complaint to add a charge for second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon
under Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1 (2016).
Before trial, appellant provided notice of his intent to rely on self -defense. The
district court instructed the jury on self-defense only for the second-degree assault charge,
not for the threat-of-violence charge. The jury acquitted appellant of assault but found him
guilty of threats of violence.
Appellant now argues that the district court’s failure to provide a self -defense
instruction for the threat-of-violence charge constitutes reversible error.

3
D E C I S I O N
I. Standard of review
The parties disagree on the standard of review. Appellant argues that the correct
standard is a buse of discretion under a harmless-error review . T he state argues that,
because appellant never requested the instruction, review is under the plain-error standard.
To preserve a jury-instruction issue for appeal, a party must place its objection to a
court ruling on the record and state its position. Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 19(4). A
proper and timely objection to a jury instruction preserves a defendant’s right to receive a
complete review of the challenged instruction on appeal. State v. Kuhnau , 622 N.W.2d
552, 555 ( Minn. 2001); see also Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.01 (explaining harmless error
review). But when a defendant does not object to a jury instruction, an appellate court
reviews the issue under the plain -error doctri ne. State v. Laine , 715 N.W.2d 425, 432
(Minn. 2006); see also Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.02 (explaining plain error review). “A
defendant’s failure to object to instructions before they are given generally results in
forfeiture of the issue on appeal.” State v. Goodloe, 718 N.W.2d 413, 420 (Minn. 2006).
When appellant provided pretrial notice of his intent to rely on self-defense, he had
been charged only with threats of violence , not with second -degree assault . In the
discussion of jury instructions duri ng the trial, the state objected to any self -defense
instruction, arguing that the evidence did not support such an instruction. The district court
stated that it would instruct the jury on self-defense.
The district court gave a self -defense instruction for the second -degree assault
charge, but not for the threats-of-violence charge. There was no objection to the absence

4
of a self -defense instruction for the threats -of-violence charge, and appellant cites no
caselaw supporting his contention that his pr etrial notice of self -defense preserved his
objection to the jury instructions. Moreover, a ppellant did not raise the alleged
instructional error in a new-trial motion. Cf. State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392, 402 -03
(Minn. 2001) (holding that a new-trial motion preserves a jury-instruction error involving
fundamental law or controlling principles). For these reasons, we conclude that appellant
did not preserve the issue of whether the district court should have instructed the jury on
self-defense for the t hreats-of-violence charge, and our standard of review is plain error .
See Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.02.
II. The district court did not commit plain error
Before an appellate court will review an unobjected -to error, the appellant must
show (1) an error, (2) th at the error was plain, and (3) that this plain error affected the
appellant’s substantial rights. State v. Hughes , 749 N.W.2d 307, 315 ( Minn. 2008). “If
these three prongs are met, the appellate court then assesses whether it should address the
error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” State v. Griller, 583
N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998) (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 117 S.
Ct. 1544, 1550 (1997)).
Therefore, the issue is whether the district court committed plain error by failing to
instruct the jury on self -defense for the threats -of-violence charge sua sponte . When
reviewing jury instructions in the plain -error context, we consider whether the district
court’s instructions accurately state the law in a manner that the jury can understand. State
v. Kelley, 855 N.W.2d 269, 274 ( Minn. 2014). An “error” represents a departure from a

5
rule of law, unless that rule has been waived. Id. The record reflects that the district court
here did not commit any error. See State v. Gustafson, 610 N.W.2d 314, 320 (Minn. 2000)
(holding that a defendant who gave no notice of self -defense and did not mention that
theory at trial could not argue that the district court had plainly erred by failing to provide
a self-defense jury instruction sua sponte, even though the evidence may have supported a
self-defense claim).
Like the defendant in Gustafson, appellant neither argued self-defense at trial for
the threats-of-violence charge nor objected to the district court’s jury instructions. Because
appellant never argued self -defense at trial for the threats -of-violence charge, the district
court did not commit any error by not giving a self-defense instruction for that charge sua
sponte. Our conclusion reflects the general principle that a district court normally does not
commit plain error by failing to sua sponte give a jury instruction. State v. Vance , 714
N.W.2d 428, 442 (Minn. 2006). Thus, the district court did not err.
Even if we accepted appellant’s argument and concluded that the district court’s
failure to provide a self -defense jury instruction sua sponte was plain error , that error did
not affect appellant’s substantial rights. Appellant has a “heavy burden” of showing a
reasonable likelihood that the alleged error significantly affected the jury’s verdict. See
Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 741.
Under Minnesota law, persons may use reasonable force to defend themselves in
certain situations. Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1 (2018). A viable self-defense claim has
four elements: “(1) the absence of aggression or provocation by the defendant, (2) the
defendant’s actual and honest belief that he or another was in imminent danger of death or

6
great bodily harm, (3) the existenc e of reasonable grounds for the belief, and (4) the
absence of a reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid danger.” State v. Zumberge , 888
N.W.2d 688, 694 ( Minn. 2017). Once a defendant meets the burden of producing some
evidence to support these elements, the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove one or
more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Basting, 572 N.W.2d 281, 285
(Minn. 1997).
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to appellant, shows that he had no
viable self-defense claim for the threats -of-violence charge. When appellant confronted
the individuals outside the second residence, he threatened to kill one of them and that
person’s entire family while holding the wooden bat. No evidence suggests that appellant
did not act as the aggressor, and he did not testify that he had a belief of imminent death or
great bodily harm. While he did yell at two individuals to get off the property, they were
not armed and did not threaten bodily harm or death to appellant.
Appellant notes that the jury did acquit him on the second -degree assault charge ,
which was accompanied by a self -defense instruction. Bu t the record shows that self -
defense was not at issue for that charge; the focus was on inconsistencies in testimony from
the state’s witnesses.
There is no reasonable likelihood that the district court’s failure to instruct the jury
on self-defense for the threats-of-violence charge sua sponte influenced the verdict.
Affirmed.