Home | Courses | Class Schedule | Instructors | Student Resources | Links | Contact

Pistolcraft, Inc.


Case Law References

These cases do not represent legal advice, nor a comprehensive listing of all cases regarding any subject, merely a resource listing, with the court's summary.
Note: The cases WILL affect issues other than those presented in the summary.
Consult an attorney versed in self defense if you do not understand any aspect or case and it's impact on self defense.

Legal links

Minnesota State Law Library Archive

Case Law

Supreme Court of Minnnesota v. Berton M. Atkinson
No. 50089
April 4, 1980
1. Any common-law or constitutional right to bear arms is not absolute and does not guarantee to individuals the right to carry loaded weapons abroad at all times and in all circumstances.
2. Travel for appreciable distances upon the public highways does not constitute the "personal safety hazard" required for issuance of a permit to carry a loaded handgun, within the meaning of Minn.St. s 624.714, subd. 5(c).

Supreme Court of Minnesota v. Lonnie Austin
C0-82-21
April 8, 1983
1. Defendant's use of deadly force was not justified.
2. The trial court's instruction on the law of retreat was correct.
3. The evidence was sufficient to support a finding of premeditation, necessary to the first-degree murder conviction.

Court of Appeals Minnesota v. Jeffrey Warren Baird
C1-01-894
March 12, 2002
State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392, 402 (Minn. 2001), which concluded that when acting in self-defense there is no duty to retreat from one’s own home, even if the aggressor is a co-resident, is not limited to prospective application because the supreme court did not specifically pronounce that Glowacki should only apply prospectively.
Supreme Court of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Warren Baird
C1-01-894
December 5, 2002
1. The rule in State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. 2001), that when acting in self-defense there is no duty to retreat from one’s own home even if the aggressor is a co-resident, applies retroactively.
2. The district court’s instruction that respondent had a duty to retreat from his home constitutes plain error and requires a new trial.
Affirmed.
Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.

Supreme Court of Minnesota v. Jack Allen Basting
C5-96-493
December 18, 1997
Defendant's experience and training as a professional boxer, while relevant to a dangerous weapon analysis, does not alone convert a fist into a dangerous weapon; as a matter of law, the defendant did not use his left fist in such a manner as to render it a dangerous weapon under Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 2 (1996).

Minnesota v. Boyce

Supreme Court of Minnesota v. Tony Lamar Carothers
C8-98-86
June 17, 1999
A duty to retreat does not attach to defense of dwelling claims. So long as a person claiming defense of dwelling meets all of the criteria for making his or her claim – that the killing was done in the belief that it was necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling, that the person's judgment as to the gravity of the situation was reasonable under the circumstances, and that the person's election to defend his or her dwelling was such as a reasonable person would have made in light of the danger to be apprehended – the person need not have attempted to retreat from his or her home.
Reversed and remanded.
Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.

Court of Appeals Minnesota v. Anthony Carter
C9-96-660
December 31, 1996
Anthony (NMN) Carter appeals from a conviction for second-degree felony murder, arguing the trial court gave the jury misleading and erroneous instructions. We affirm.

Court of Appeals Minnesota v. William Glowacki
C8-99-1507
July 18, 2000
In an altercation between co-residents occurring within a defendant's own home, the legal excuse of self-defense does not include a duty to retreat.
Supreme Court of Minnesota v. William Glowacki
C8-99-1507
July 12, 2001
There is no duty to retreat from one’s own home when acting in self-defense in the home regardless of whether the aggressor is a co-resident, although any use of force must be reasonable under the specific circumstances of each case.

Court of Appeals Minnesota v. John P. Graham
C0-98-888
February 23, 1999
In an appeal from conviction, John Graham challenges the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a charge for transportation of a loaded, uncased firearm and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the requisite elements of fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle. Because state courts have jurisdiction over criminal acts committed by non-Band members in Indian country, and the evidence supports Graham's fleeing conviction, we affirm.

Court of Appeals Minnesota v. Mario Gerald Grillo
C5-02-858
May 20, 2003
1. Prosecution of an individual under Minnesota’s “Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm” statute for possession of a firearm after adjudication as delinquent for commission of a predicate “crime of violence” that was not classified as a “crime of violence” when the person was so adjudicated is not a violation of the state and federal constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws.
2. Inclusion of offense for which an individual was adjudicated delinquent as a “crime of violence” after the person had been so adjudicated, thus disqualifying him or her from possessing a firearm, and subsequent prosecution for possessing a firearm as an ineligible person was not an unconstitutional application of ex post facto law.

Court of Appeals Minnesota v. Larry Richard Hackler
C2-96-662
September 24, 1996
Appeal from postconviction proceedings wherein the postconviction court found that appellant had not proved ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We affirm.

Supreme Court of Minnesota v. Eli Hare, Jr.
CX-96-1672
March 5, 1998
1. Minnesota's defense of dwelling defense anticipates an unauthorized intrusion into the defendant's dwelling. Necessarily, when the defendant and the victim reside in the same dwelling, the defendant cannot raise the defense of dwelling defense.
2. We caution trial courts that when a homicide defendant, asserting self-defense, claims that the resulting death was unintentional, CRIMJIG 7.05 is inappropriate and that CRIMJIG 7.06 is likely to better fit the facts of the case.
Affirmed.
Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.

Harris

Court of Appeals Minnesota v. Charles Edward Hicks
C1-98-298
August 25, 1998
An apartment building's hallway is a public place within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1(a) (1996).

Court of Appeals Minnesota v. Kevin Lemont Holmes
C5-96-901
November 22, 1996
This is a pretrial appeal by the state from an order of the district court suppressing evidence and dismissing the charge against Holmes of carrying a weapon without a permit in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.714. By notice of review, Holmes challenges the district court's interpretation of an exception to the statute. Because we find that the district court improperly suppressed evidence, but properly interpreted the statute, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Supreme Court of Minnesota v. Kevin Lemont Holmes
C5-96-901
1. A police officer cannot make a Terry stop to investigate a parking violation.
2. When a police officer's sole motivation in conducting an inventory search of an automobile is to discover evidence of a crime, it is unreasonable.
Reversed.
Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.

Court of Appeals Minnesota v. Ronald Clifford Linville
C8-99-308
July 6, 1999
A person traveling between home and place of business is not covered by the Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 9(c) (1998), exception to the handgun permit requirement if the person's home is not in reasonable proximity to the place of business.

Court of Appeals Minnesota v. Robert Alan Nelson, Jr.
C1-00-1663
June 12, 2001
This is an appeal from a conviction for second-degree assault. Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he did not grab a rifle and fire shots into the air in self-defense, to ward off the victim, whom appellant testified was approaching him and appeared to be reaching for a weapon. Appellant raises additional issues in his pro se brief. We affirm.

Court of Appeals Minnesota v. Mark Christian Palmer
C9-01-559
December 4, 2001
For purposes of Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 9(a) (1998), which establishes an exception to the requirement that an individual must have a permit to possess a pistol, a person’s “place of business” does not include a vehicle used by a courier company’s employee.

Court of Appeals Minnesota v. Akeem Pendleton
C6-95-2162
November 5, 1996
Appellant Akeem Pendleton challenges his convictions of first- and second-degree assault, alleging the trial court's self-defense jury instructions were inaccurate and misleading in that the instructions required him to meet the three conditions set forth in State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 170 N.W.2d 104 (1969), to justify his use of deadly force. We affirm.
Supreme Court Minnesota v. Akeem Pendleton
C6-95-2162
August 7, 1997
1. Fear of death or great bodily harm is not an element of a "defense of dwelling" claim. Minn. Stat. § 609.065.
2. Jury instructions that required the jury to find that the defendant feared great bodily harm or death to justify his use of deadly force in preventing the commission of a felony in his place of abode were in error, and the error was not harmless.

Poupard

Court of Appeals Minnesota v. Abdulla Omar Reed
C5-01-39
October 30, 2001
Appellant challenges his conviction of third-degree assault, arguing that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to conclude that the state proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did not establish one or more of the elements of self-defense. Because we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the state met its burden of proof, we affirm.

Court of Appeals Minnesota vs. Annette Naomi Robinson
C3-00-1471
July 24, 2001
In sentencing appellant for second-degree felony murder, the district imposed the presumptive sentence mandated by the sentencing guidelines. We affirm.
Pistolcraft note: In the catagory of things NOT to say to the police, see the last line before the concurring opinion -
"is that son of a bitch dead yet?"

soukoup

Court of Appeals Minnesota v. Phyllis Eugenia Taylor
C5-98-1180
May 18, 1999
The statutory exception to the requirement of a permit to possess a pistol in a motor vehicle that allows an unloaded pistol to be carried in a “case” refers to a gun case and does not extend to a purse.

State of Minnesota v. Kristi Kathleen Wood
C2-97-1482
May 5, 1998
Appellant Kristi Kathaleen Wood challenges the district court's jury instructions, claiming the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that the legal doctrine of justification included the right to defend another who was being assaulted. We affirm.

Website designed by Oleg Volk Oleg Volk's Homepage
All contents copyright 2005, Pistolcraft, Inc.