On July 31 2024, Minnesota Supreme Court delivered ruling in case of State of Minnesota v. Earley Romero Blevins. This decision addressed crucial aspect of self-defense law. The case revolved around whether the judicially created duty to retreat when reasonably possible, applies to individuals claiming self-defense in situations involving felony second-degree assault with dangerous weapon.

Background of the Case

Earley Romero Blevins was charged with two counts of felony second-degree assault for brandishing a machete at three individuals on a light rail platform in downtown Minneapolis. The incident, captured on surveillance videos, showed Blevins wielding the machete with the intent to cause fear of immediate bodily harm. Blevins asserted that his actions were in self-defense, claiming the individuals posed a threat to him, including one person who allegedly threatened to slice his throat.

Legal Arguments

Blevins based his defense on Minnesota Statutes section 609.06, subdivision 1(3), which permits the use of reasonable force when resisting an offense against a person. However, the court had to determine whether Blevins had a duty to retreat before using such force. In past rulings, Minnesota courts have consistently held that the duty to retreat applies when reasonably possible.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized the judicially created element of self-defense that mandates retreat when reasonably possible. This duty is not explicitly stated in the statute but has been inferred from common law and prior case law, notably State v. Basting and State v. Johnson. The court reiterated that the public policy underlying this duty aims to prevent unnecessary and potentially deadly confrontations.

In Blevins’s case, the court found that despite the perceived threat, he had a reasonable opportunity to retreat. The surveillance footage and evidence presented showed that Blevins did not attempt to de-escalate the situation by retreating but instead escalated it by brandishing the machete.  The brandishing of the machete triggered Minn. Stat §609.02, Subd 10(2) Assault-fear, which along with other case law, which establishes “Instead a person commits assault-fear by acting with the “intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death.” Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the duty to retreat applied and Blevins’s actions were not justified under the self-defense statute.

“The Legislature has recognized two forms of assault: assault-harm and assault-fear. Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 10 (2022). A person commits assault-harm through the “intentional infliction of . . . bodily harm upon another.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 10(2). Assault-fear, in contrast, “does not require a finding of actual harm to the victim.” State v. Fleck, 810 N.W.2d 303, 308 (Minn. 2012) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, a person commits assault-fear by acting with the “intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 10(1) (emphasis added). Although assault-harm and assault-fear are distinct offenses, they are equal in severity in the eyes of the law. ” (Minnesota Supreme Court, 2024)

Implications of the Ruling

The ruling highlights a critical point: in Minnesota individuals cannot claim self-defense in cases of felony second-degree assault with dangerous weapon, if they had reasonable opportunity to retreat. This decision aims to discourage escalation of confrontations. It emphasizes importance of retreating to avoid potentially deadly situations.

The court’s narrow extension of duty to retreat to cases involving dangerous weapons highlights state’s intent to minimize violent encounters and creating a feeling of public safety. While ruling is specific to this case, it sets significant precedent for future self-defense claims involving similar circumstances, while imposing this new layer or requirement to the duty to retreat.

It is essential to balance the right to self-defense with need to prevent unnecessary harm. This ruling by Minnesota Supreme Court serves as reminder of legal requirements that must be met prior to the use of force.  The duty to retreat has not been changed, however the new layer of requiring retreat prior to displaying a weapon.

We cannot provide legal guidance or opinions, for those please consult with competent counsel.  This article was written to raise awareness of new changes in MN Case Law that will impact you and your decisions while carrying a firearm.  In the coming months and years there will be a number of updates and opinions generated off of this decision. If you have further questions on what statutes and case law decisions have an impact on you, please visit some of the references below to gather additional current information.  If you have questions or training needs, please visit www.castleguardtraining and will answer them or we can find a class for your or create one that meets your needs!

References:

Minnesota Supreme Court. (2024, July 31). Supreme Court opinion: Case OPA220432. Retrieved August 4, 2024, from https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/Appellate/Supreme%20Court/Standard%20Opinions/OPA220432-073124.pdf

Gun Owners Caucus. (n.d.). Minnesota laws. Gun Owners Caucus. Retrieved August 4, 2024, from https://gunowners.mn/learn/minnesota-laws/

Gun Owners Caucus. (n.d.). Case law. Gun Owners Caucus. Retrieved August 4, 2024, from https://gunowners.mn/learn/case-law/

Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. (n.d.). Minnesota Statutes, section 609.02. Retrieved August 4, 2024, from https://revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.02

Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. (n.d.). Minnesota Statutes, section 609.222. Retrieved August 4, 2024, from https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.222