self-defense jury instruction in Minnesota

2026The supreme court also applied the plain-error rule in State v. Carridine to the district court’s provision of a self-defense jury instruction even though the defendant 13 had requested that instruction. 812 N.W.2d 130, 142-44 (Minn. 2012).

2024Cf. State v. Peterson, 411 N.W.2d 518, 521-22 (Minn. App. 1987) (reasoning that the district court would have acted within its discretion by granting the defendant’s request for a self-defense jury instruction based on the facts that the victim made verbal threats to kill him, the defendant and victim were having a heated argument, and the defendant’s belief that the victim might have a gun), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 21, 1987).

2023Johnson, 719 N.W.2d at 629 (quoting State v. Basting, 572 N.W.2d 281, 285 (Minn. 1997)).

2016“If the defense was not prejudiced by a refusal to issue an instruction, there is no reversible error.” State v. Hannon, 703 N.W.2d 498, 509 (Minn. 2005). 4 The district court denied Holisky’s request for a self-defense jury instruction because there was “no testimony relative to [the] elements of self defense.” A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.

2016State v. Coleman, 373 N.W.2d 777, 781 (Minn. 1985).

2015Even if the district court’s instruction was erroneous, a new trial would be warranted only if the error “might have prompted the jury, which is presumed to be reasonable, to reach a harsher verdict than it might have otherwise reached.” State v. Lee, 683 N.W.2d 309, 316 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

2014See, e.g., State v. Montanaro, 802 N.W.2d 726, 733 (Minn. 2011) (concluding that the self-defense jury instruction could not have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict because “no reasonable jury could find [defendant’s] actions to be a reasonable use of force”); State v. Larson, 787 N.W.2d 592, 601 (Minn. 2010) (holding that defendant’s substantial rights were not affected by allegedly erroneous accomplice liability jury instruction because there was “considerable evidence” of the defendant’s intent that the victim be murdered); Gomez, 721 N.W.2d at 881 (“Given the totality of the ev

2014See, e.g., Montanaro v. State, 802 N.W.2d 726, 733 (Minn.2011) (concluding that the self-defense jury instruction could not have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict because “no reasonable jury could find [defendant’s] actions to be a reasonable use of force”); State v. Larson, 787 N.W.2d 592, 601 (Minn.2010) (holding that defendant’s substantial rights were not affected by allegedly erroneous accomplice liability jury instruction because there was “considerable evidence” of the defendant’s intent that the victim be murdered); Gomez, 721 N.W.2d at 881 (“Given the totality of the evid

2014See, e.g., State v. Montanaro, 802 N.W.2d 726, 733 (Minn. 2011) (concluding that the self-defense jury instruction could not have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict because “no reasonable jury could find [defendant’s] actions to be a reasonable use of force”); State v. Larson, 787 N.W.2d 592, 601 (Minn. 2010) (holding that defendant’s substantial rights were not affected by allegedly erroneous accomplice liability jury instruction because there was “considerable evidence” of the defendant’s intent that the victim be murdered); Gomez, 721 N.W.2d at 881 (“Given the totality of the ev

2014See, e.g., Montanaro v. State, 802 N.W.2d 726, 733 (Minn.2011) (concluding that the self-defense jury instruction could not have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict because “no reasonable jury could find [defendant’s] actions to be a reasonable use of force”); State v. Larson, 787 N.W.2d 592, 601 (Minn.2010) (holding that defendant’s substantial rights were not affected by allegedly erroneous accomplice liability jury instruction because there was “considerable evidence” of the defendant’s intent that the victim be murdered); Gomez, 721 N.W.2d at 881 (“Given the totality of the evid

2014See, e.g., State v. Montanaro, 802 N.W.2d 726, 733 (Minn. 2011) (concluding that the self-defense jury instruction could not have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict because “no reasonable jury could find [defendant’s] actions to be a reasonable use of force”); State v. Larson, 787 N.W.2d 592, 601 (Minn. 2010) (holding that defendant’s substantial rights were not affected by allegedly erroneous accomplice liability jury instruction because there was “considerable evidence” of the defendant’s intent that the victim be murdered); Gomez, 721 N.W.2d at 881 (“Given the totality of the ev

2014See, e.g., Montanaro v. State, 802 N.W.2d 726, 733 (Minn.2011) (concluding that the self-defense jury instruction could not have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict because “no reasonable jury could find [defendant’s] actions to be a reasonable use of force”); State v. Larson, 787 N.W.2d 592, 601 (Minn.2010) (holding that defendant’s substantial rights were not affected by allegedly erroneous accomplice liability jury instruction because there was “considerable evidence” of the defendant’s intent that the victim be murdered); Gomez, 721 N.W.2d at 881 (“Given the totality of the evid