What Is Self-Defense Under Minnesota Law?

By Sullivan Rice

When someone is accused of assault or another violent crime, one of the most important questions may be whether they were acting in self-defense. Minnesota law recognizes a person's right to use reasonable force to protect themselves from an offense against their person. But that right has limits.

Self-defense is not simply a matter of saying, "I was afraid," after an incident. Minnesota courts look at the circumstances surrounding the use of force, including what the person believed was happening, whether that belief was reasonable, and whether the person could have safely avoided the danger.

What Does Minnesota Law Say About Self-Defense?

Minnesota Statute § 609.06 provides that reasonable force may be used when a person is resisting or helping another person resist an offense against the person. The statute also recognizes that the circumstances can exist when the person reasonably believes they exist.

That means the law does not necessarily require a person to wait until they have actually been injured before defending themselves. The circumstances and the person's reasonable perception of the threat matter.

However, the force used must be reasonable under the circumstances.

Four Important Factors in a Minnesota Self-Defense Claim

Minnesota courts have identified four factors that are important when determining whether a person's use of force was justified.

1. The person cannot be the aggressor or provoke the confrontation

Self-defense generally does not protect someone who intentionally starts or provokes a confrontation and then uses force when the situation escalates.

The circumstances leading up to the use of force can therefore be extremely important. Investigators and courts may look at who initiated the confrontation, what was said or done beforehand, and whether the person claiming self-defense contributed to creating the situation.

2. The person must actually and honestly believe they are in imminent danger

A person claiming self-defense must actually believe that they are in danger.

Minnesota courts have described this as an actual and honest belief that the person is facing imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

This is the subjective part of the analysis: What did the person actually believe was happening at the time?

That can be very different from how the situation might look when viewed later, after the danger has passed.

3. There must be reasonable grounds for that belief

An honest belief is not enough by itself.

The belief that force was necessary must also have been reasonable under the circumstances. Courts can consider the facts known to the person at the time, rather than simply looking at the incident with the benefit of hindsight.

For example, a person may genuinely believe they are about to be seriously injured. But if the surrounding circumstances would not support that belief as reasonable, a self-defense claim may not succeed.

This is one reason the specific facts of an incident matter so much in a criminal case.

4. There must not have been a reasonable opportunity to retreat

Minnesota law has historically recognized a duty to retreat when a person can reasonably do so without danger.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has included the absence of a reasonable possibility of retreat among the factors used when evaluating self-defense.

This does not mean that a person is required to run away from every confrontation. The question is whether there was a reasonable opportunity to avoid the danger.

What About Deadly Force?

Minnesota law treats deadly force differently from ordinary reasonable force.

Under Minnesota Statute § 609.065, the intentional taking of another person's life is not authorized by the ordinary self-defense provision unless it is necessary to resist or prevent an offense that the person reasonably believes exposes themselves or another person to great bodily harm or death. The statute also contains a separate provision concerning the prevention of a felony in the person's place of abode.

In other words, the legal justification for using deadly force is much narrower than the justification for using ordinary reasonable force.

The distinction matters because not every physical confrontation gives someone the legal right to use deadly force.

Can You Defend Someone Else?

Yes. Minnesota law also recognizes the defense of others.

Minnesota Statute § 609.06, subdivision 1(3), specifically allows reasonable force when a person is "resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person."

The Minnesota Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in State v. Valdez, explaining that Minnesota's self-defense law includes defense of others. The Court also discussed the four factors traditionally used when evaluating whether the use of force was reasonable.

That means a person does not necessarily have to be protecting themselves to raise a justification defense. The circumstances may also support using reasonable force to protect another person from an offense.

Self-Defense Is About the Circumstances, Not Just the Outcome

One of the biggest misconceptions about self-defense is that the outcome of an incident automatically determines whether the force was justified.

It does not.

A person may use force in response to a threat and still be charged with a crime. A criminal charge does not automatically mean that the person's actions were unlawful, just as claiming self-defense does not automatically make the conduct legally justified.

The details matter.

What happened immediately before the confrontation? Who initiated the encounter? What did the person know at the time? What did they reasonably believe was about to happen? How much force did they use? Was there an opportunity to safely retreat?

Those questions can become critical in determining whether a self-defense claim applies.

Why These Cases Can Be Complicated

Self-defense cases often involve competing versions of the same event. There may be surveillance video, cellphone recordings, eyewitnesses, text messages, photographs, medical records, police reports, or other evidence that helps establish what happened.

There may also be important questions about what a person knew or perceived at the moment force was used.

That is why a self-defense case should not be evaluated solely by looking at the final injury or the fact that force was used. The entire sequence of events needs to be examined.

Charged With a Crime After Defending Yourself?

If you have been charged with assault or another crime after an incident where you believe you were defending yourself or another person, the circumstances surrounding the incident are important.

Minnesota self-defense law can be complicated, particularly when serious injuries or deadly force are involved. A criminal defense attorney can review the evidence, the applicable Minnesota statutes, and the circumstances leading up to the incident to determine whether self-defense or another justification defense may apply.

At Jack Rice Defense, we represent people facing serious criminal allegations throughout Minnesota. If you or someone you know has been charged after an incident involving self-defense, contact our office to discuss your case.