St. Paul, Minn. (CN) —Minnesota’s Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a “messy” case testing the boundaries of the state’s duty-to-retreat laws.
Earley Romero Blevins was convicted for two counts of second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon after he was caught on video brandishing and swinging a machete at other passengers at a light-rail station in Minneapolis. Blevins had drawn the machete after one of the passengers he was threatening, “MBS,” drew a knife and threatened to slit Blevins' throat. A bystander who’d been watching the interaction then attacked Blevins from behind and attempted to disarm him, which one of the people he’d been arguing with, “MBT,” took as an opportunity to stab Blevins.
Blevins took control of the machete and helped the bystander to his feet. The bystander then walked to a nearby hospital, and Blevins boarded a train. He was arrested after the train reached the neighboring city of St. Paul, and charged first for second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon based on his altercation with the bystander, then for two counts of second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon with the intent to cause fear based on his interaction with the knife-wielders and another passenger he’d been arguing with, “FTT.”
After a bench trial, Blevins was found not guilty on the count stemming from the interaction with the bystander as he acted in self-defense. The same reasoning did not extend to his assault-fear convictions, however, and the court imposed a presumptive 39-month executed sentence.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed Blevins’ convictions, finding that Blevins had a duty to retreat from his three assailants. At the Supreme Court, Assistant State Public Defender Sara Martin said that preventing Minnesotans from threatening harm in response to threats of harm against them would be unreasonable.
“Do we still want to impose upon a crime victim this duty to retreat when there is this intermediate step where they can say ‘stay away from me or I will defend myself?’” Martin asked. “I think the average Minnesotan would be surprised to learn that that’s not an option for them.”
Asked about a dearth of cases on the topic, she noted that cases like Blevins’ aren’t frequently charged, particularly if they involve less-lethal force. In a hypothetical proposed by Justice Paul Thissen wherein a woman warned off an attacker with a can of pepper spray, for example, the woman would have been using the threat of force before attempting to retreat — but a district attorney would be reticent to charge her. “These cases aren’t as likely to be charged, and so they’re not going to make their way up to the courts," Martin said.
Minnesota is one of only a handful of states which imposes a duty to retreat before resorting to the use of force. Under current Minnesota law, anyone seeking to claim self-defense must first show that they made an attempt to retreat from or avoid danger, with a few exceptions. That currently applies to assault charges of all kinds, including those based on the attempt to cause fear.
The justices expressed wariness when it came to overturning that state of affairs. “You are advocating a stand your ground policy, which many states have adopted,” Chief Justice Natalie Hudson said to Martin. She cited research warning against such laws. “They actually encourage violence. Our record, in this country, shows that they’re disproportionately used against people of color. I still haven’t heard a compelling reason why we should change our minds about that.”
Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Nicole Cornale argued that “self-defense is an exception; it should be construed narrowly.” Assault based on fear and based on harm are both codified in the same section of the same statute, she said, and should be treated as the same crime when it comes to that exception.
Justice Anthony Procaccini asked if this particular case is stretching Minnesota’s duty to retreat a little thin. “We’re already a little out on a limb here, we’re one of three states that does not permit force,” he said.
Cornale disagreed. "As the chief justice has recognized, there are plenty of reasons Minnesota doesn’t take that position,” she said. A change of this significance to Minnesota’s stand-your-ground position, she said, would have to go through the Legislature.
She also noted that the train wasn’t Blevins’ only option to retreat. The light-rail station, she said, is in open air and offers numerous avenues of escape — and at one point surveillance video shows him pointing to the machete before ever being threatened with the knife.
Thissen said much of this case could come down to when a defendant is expected to retreat. “At some point, it seems completely reasonable that you would expect someone to walk away from a situation,” he said to Martin. “You’re saying that this point is when they are no longer in fear of bodily harm.” He and Hudson each concluded their questioning with notes that making this “reasonableness” test would be a difficult burden to place on trial courts.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
