Northern Minnesota is under a new alert until Friday at 7 p.m.

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that even when a person is threatened or under attack, they can’t use a deadly weapon if it’s “reasonably possible to retreat.” Self-defense involves a defendant claiming the reason they pulled out a deadly weapon because they felt “threatened” by another person. 

This decision stems from a knife and machete altercation in downtown Minneapolis in 2021. It involved the question of whether a person can claim self-defense when they’re charged with felony second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon. Under state law, a person commits assault — fear by acting with the “specific intent to cause them to fear immediate bodily harm.”

Earley Romero Blevins of Minneapolis got into an altercation with a man and woman on a light rail train platform near U.S. Bank Stadium. The man was armed with a knife and told Blevins to come inside the platform shelter that was outside the view of surveillance cameras so he could “slice Blevins’s throat.”

Blevins pulled a machete out of his waistband and moved toward the man and woman while holding the weapon. When another man tried to intervene, Blevins started yelling and swinging the machete at them for about a minute, causing them to retreat. 

Justice Margaret Chutich, in a 4-2 majority opinion, wrote that Minnesota law says a person needs to retreat when reasonably possible, even when being threatened with bodily harm. She wrote that the idea that people can stand their ground, escalate the situation, and brandish a deadly weapon as Blevins argued “in the uncertain hope that it will cause the initial aggressor to back down — is unsound.”

Chutich also added that the court sees this as a “narrow” extension of the added responsibility to retreat when possible and is limited to second-degree assault and doesn’t include cases without a dangerous weapon. 

Justices Paul Thissen and Karl Procaccini dissented. Thissen called the decision “unprecedented.” He also added that Minnesota’s self-defense statute says reasonable force can be used against someone to resist an offense against that person, arguing that Blevins’ conviction should be reversed and a new trial should be held to see if his threatening behavior was reasonable.

“As far as I’m aware, the rule has never been adopted anywhere in the United States,” Thissen wrote. “Until now, the collective wisdom of judges nationwide over hundreds of years has never imposed a duty to retreat before making threats to deter an aggressor.”

Justices Natalie Hudson, Anne McKeig and Gordon Moore agreed with the majority, while Justice Sarah Hennsey didn’t participate. Chutich’s last day on court was Wednesday. Justice Theordora Gaitas starts her term Thursday.

Hannah Yang

Author

In a 4-2 majority decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court wrote a person needs to retreat when reasonably possible, even when being threatened with bodily harm.

Minnesota Supreme Court weighs in on when a threatened person must retreat

Go Deeper.

Like this?