Cited by

Factors to consider in determining whether the force used was reasonable include the “age and size of victim and defendant, victim’s reputation for violence, previous threats and/or altercations between victim and defendant; defendant’s aggression, if any; victim’s provocation, if any.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

d 424, 426 (Minn. App. 2003), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

The court of appeals stated that “[t]he claim of self-defense is sufficiently raised when a defendant creates a reasonable doubt as to 9 whether the level of force was justified.” Baker, 2023 WL 8013919, at *3 ().

“[A] number of factors are relevant to the determination of whether the level of force used was reasonable: age and size of victim and defendant; victim’s reputation for violence; previous threats and/or altercations between victim and defendant; defendant’s aggression, if any; victim’s provocation, if any.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

bodily harm would result; (3) a reasonable basis existed for this belief; and (4) an absence of reasonable means to retreat or otherwise avoid the physical conflict.” 1 (holding that the same “principles of self-defense in homicide cases apply to assault cases as well”), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

d 424, 429 (Minn. App. 2003), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

bodily harm would result; (3) a reasonable basis existed for this belief; and (4) an absence of reasonable means to retreat or otherwise avoid the physical conflict.” () (holding that these same “principles of self-defense in homicide cases apply to assault cases as well”), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

A. Self-defense To obtain a self -defense instruction, a defendant must provide evidence to show: “(1) an absence of aggression or provocation; (2) an actual and honest belief that imminent death or great bodily harm would result; (3) a reasonable basis existed for this belief; and (4) an absence of reasonable means to retreat or otherwi se avoid the physical conflict.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

“Actual commotion need not occur, rath er it is sufficient if defendant ’s conduct is likely to annoy, disturb, or arouse anger.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

Like Noggle, Lewandowski did not address the relationship between the elements of a completed and attempted offense, and, even if it did, we are not bound by dicta in our prior decisions , -31 (Minn. App. 2003) , rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

at 294 (-30 (Minn. App. 2003), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

d 424, 426-27 (Minn. App. 2003) (declining to reverse for harmless error), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

review denied (Minn. Apr.

The law “is not offense-specific and imposes no limits on application of the defense 10 based on the type of offense charged.” review denied (Minn. Apr.

bodily harm 5 would result; (3) a reasonable basis existed for this belief; and (4) an absence of reasonable means to retreat or otherwise avoid the physical conflict.” State v. Soukup , d 424, 428 (Minn. App. 2003) (holding that these principles of self-defense apply to assault cases), review denied (Minn. Apr.

review denied (Minn. Apr.

State v. Soukup , review denied (Minn. Apr.

Generally, “whether a defendant’s use of force was reasonable is a fact question and, like all factual disputes, should be decided by the fact-finder.” State v. Soukup , (Mi nn.

1 The jury did not receive an “imminent danger” instruction, only an instruction for where the “offense was being committed on the person or the person reasonably believed it was.” The “imminent danger” el ement was adopted by State v. Soukup , review denied (Minn. Apr.

review denied (Minn. Apr.

–31 (Minn. App. 2003) (stating that dicta is “a statement that reaches beyond the actual dispute before the court” and is “not part of the court’s opinion”), review denied (Minn. Apr.

review denied (Minn. Apr.

ed to the disorderly conduct charges” and “read the instructions for the defenses immediately after the fifth-degree assault instructions without repeating them after the disorderly conduct instructions.” Heath is correct that “self- defense is applicable to a charge of disorderly conduct where the behavior forming the basis of the offense presents the threat of bodily harm.” review denied (Minn. Apr.

(stating that a factual dispute becomes a question of 6 law “when the evidence in the record is undisputed and leads .

(noting that “[w]hen determining legislative intent, we presume that the legislature did not intend an absurd result,” and that “courts should give a reasonable and sensible construction to criminal statutes” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Apr.

anguage of the statute by telling the jury that it was lawful for [appellant] to act in self-defense only if he was being assaulted, which suggested that he must be under assault before he can assert that right.” We agree with appellant that the statute’s language, “an offense against the person,” is somewhat broader than the instruction’s language, “an assault.” (holding that “self-defense is applicable to a charge of disorderly conduct where the behavior forming the basis of the offense presen

However, reputation evidence is irrelevant when the essential facts are undisputed, see State v. Graham, 292 Minn. 308, 312-13, and when there is no dispute that the victim was the first aggressor and the defendant responded with an unwarranted escalation of force, review denied (Minn. Apr.

review denied (Minn. Apr.

d 424, 429 (Minn. App. 2003).