State Supreme Court establishes duty to retreat before wielding weapon for self-defense

People confronted with danger must try to find a way to safety before brandishing a weapon in preparation of self-defense, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

Associate Justice Margaret Chutich authored the 4-2 majority opinion, affirming a lower court ruling that upheld the state’s doctrine that one has the “duty to retreat when reasonably possible.”

The majority opinion considered whether it was appropriate to commit the felony charge of second-degree assault — which in Minnesota can apply when a weapon is used with the intent to cause “fear” — in instances when it’s possible to avoid a violent confrontation.

The case originated from a second-degree assault conviction in which defendant Earley Blevins brandished a machete on a Minneapolis light rail platform for over a minute after a man with a knife approached him on June 2, 2021, and told him to walk out of view of surveillance cameras so he could slice Blevins’ throat.

Blevins argued that he feared for his life and was acting in self-defense, but after reviewing video evidence, the court determined he had adequate opportunity to remove himself from the situation.

“When viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the direct evidence form the security videos presented at trial disproves without a reasonable doubt Blevin’s claim that it was not reasonably possible for him to retreat,” Chutich wrote.

Writing for the dissent, Associate Justice Paul Thissen argued the majority opinion is “unprecedented in the United States; it also flies in the face of human nature,” particularly because Blevins did not actually attack anyone.

“There is a critical difference between using threats in self-defense and harming someone in self-defense,” Thissen wrote. “Both actions are, by definition, a response to a potentially dangerous situation.”

He later concludes that threats “are more nuanced” than harming someone in self-defense and even argued they could be a form of deescalation.

“When one considers the duty to retreat as encouraging people to deescalate dangerous situations, requiring retreat before using force (certainly lethal force) to harm someone is justified,” Thissen wrote. “Whether it is reasonable to require in all circumstances that a person retreat if reasonably possible before using the threat of force to deescalate the situation or create better opportunities to escape is a much different question best left to the jury.”