Cited by

retreat is inapplicable when a person acts in self-defense on the lands surrounding his home.” But in a subsequent case, the Minnesota Supreme Court explained that Gardner—which the court described as arising from “facts peculiar to frontier life” — held only “that the duty to retreat does not exist when two individuals, armed with guns, confront each other in an open space.” (quotation omitted).

He does, however, cite four cases that he says show that “the duty to retreat [arises] after a confrontation begins, or there is imminent danger, not before.” WL 2125770 (Minn. App. Feb.

making a killing unjustified if the danger was reasonably avoidable,” and that the defendant’s self-defense claim failed where he had an opportunity to retreat when he shot the victim while the defendant “was in the driver’s seat of the van that was stopped in the middle of the street, the engine was running, nothing was blocking his exit, and [the victim] was on foot outside”); (holding that the defendant’s use of force was unjustified because he had “options for escape or avoidance of peril .

(holding that a defendant did not satisfy his duty to retreat when he had “[s]everal options for escape or avoidance of peril”).

See State v. Austin , (holding that a person generally has a duty to retreat and avoid danger before using deadly force ).

See McArthur , d at 50 (relying on the inference that the defendant retrieved the murder weapon within a few hours before the murder); State v. Clark , , 422-23 (Minn. 2007) (relying on the fact that the defendant brought the murder weapon to the scene of the murder as strong evidence of premeditation); State v. Austin , , 25 (Minn. 1983) (relying on the fact that the defendant walked up a set of stairs before shooting the victim as evidence of premeditation).

State v. Anderson , , 242 (Minn. 2010) ; see also Cox , d at 412 (possessing the murder weapon before the murder was planning activity); State v. Clark , , 423 (Minn. 2007) (bringing the murder weapon to the scene of the murder was planning activity); State v. Austin , , 25 (Minn. 1983) (walking up a *8 set of stairs to commit a murder supported an inference of premeditation).

(); (describing the four elements of self-defense in a homicide case as (1) the absence of aggression or provocation; (2) an actual and honest belief of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; (3) reasonable grounds for that belief; and'

grave peril at that place or time.”

In State v. Austin, we held that premeditation was established by the amount of time it took to walk up a “short flight of stairs.” 25 (Minn.1983), cited with approval in Yang, d at 561.

See, -25 (Minn.1983) (holding that the State’s characterization of duty-to-retreat law was correct).

Previously, we concluded that the defendant had sufficient time to formulate a plan between the time he saw the victim from the bottom of a flight of stairs and the time he reached the top of the stairs and shot the victim, and between the time a defendant carried a gun from his living room to the outside of his home

(quoting State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254 , ).

See, -03 (Minn.1980); State v. Graham, 292 Minn. 308, 310-12 , -45 (1972); State v. Baker, 280 Minn. 518, 521-24 , -43 (1968); State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 223 (1865).

Once a claim of self-defense is raised, it is the state’s burden “to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not justifiable.”