Cited by

Absence of Aggression or Provocation Generally, “[a]n aggressor in an incident has no right to a claim of self-defense.”

to his intended victim.” .

“An aggressor in an incident has no right to a claim of self-defense.”

“An aggressor in an incident has no right to a claim of self -defense.” Bellcourt v. State

“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”)).

“An aggressor in an incident has no right to a claim of self -defense.” Bellcourt v. State

(holding that killing was felony murder because there was “no real question that defendant killed [the victim] while committing the crime of aggravated robbery”).

But “where the evidence warrants an instruction, the [district] court must give it.”

at 597; (stating that “where the evidence warrants an instruction” on a lesser -included offense, “the trial court must give it”).

] are pa rts of one continuous transaction.” (quotation omitted).

“The determination of what, if any, lesser offense to submit to the jury lies within the sound discretion of the [district] court, but where the evidence warrants an instruction, the [district] court must give it.” Bellcourt v. State , (citations omitted).

Failure to submit a lesser offense to a fact -finder “is a ground for reversal only if defendant is prejudiced thereby.”

A jury has a rationa l basis to acquit on the greate r offense and convict on the lesser offense if proof of the elements that “differentiate the two crimes [is] sufficiently in dispute so that a jury may make this distinction.”

“In determining whether an offense is a lesser-included offense, [we look] at the elements of the offense, not the facts of the particular case.”

We have interpreted the word “while” to require that the felony and killing were “parts of one continuous transaction.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

(stating that “[t]he process of *630 going forward with evidence is complete when the defendant submits reasonable evidence”); -73 (Minn.1986) (determining that there was no evidence that defendant, who was the original aggressor, had clearly-manifested the good-faith intention to withdraw required when seeking a self-defense instruction); (determining that one element of self-defense argum

at 598 ( State v. Walker, 306 Minn. 105 , ).

( Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 421-22 , d at 125-26 ).

State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414, 421-22 , -26 (1975).

The decision to submit instructions for lesser-included offenses lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, “but where the evidence warrants an instruction, the trial court must give it.”

Determining if a lesser-included offense should be submitted to the jury “lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, * * * but where the evidence warrants an instruction, the trial court must give it.” (citations omitted).