State v. Pendleton
1997 Minn. LEXIS 562, 567 N.W.2d 265, 1997 WL 441785 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Minnesota law, the justification for using deadly force in defense of one's dwelling to prevent the commission of a felony does not require the defendant to have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. This 'defense of dwelling' justification is distinct from the justification of self-defense, which does require such a fear.
Facts:
- Akeem Pendleton was at his Minneapolis home with his fiancee, Lorraine Wilson, and some friends.
- Wilson's cousin, Tony Caine, arrived and began a heated argument with Wilson over family and financial issues.
- Caine then went into the kitchen, shoved Pendleton, and punched him in the face several times, causing Pendleton to bleed.
- A friend intervened and separated the two men. Pendleton went into the bathroom to clean his face.
- After emerging from the bathroom, Pendleton asked Caine to leave the apartment, but Caine refused.
- Caine then rushed at Pendleton again in the front room.
- Pendleton grabbed a shotgun from the ceiling tiles and, during a struggle with Caine over the weapon, shot Caine in the shoulder.
Procedural Posture:
- Akeem Pendleton was charged in a trial court with attempted second-degree murder, and first- and second-degree assault.
- At trial, Pendleton argued self-defense and defense of dwelling and requested a jury instruction separating the legal requirements for the two defenses.
- The trial court denied the request and gave a standard instruction that required fear of great bodily harm or death for both defenses.
- A jury convicted Pendleton on the assault charges but acquitted him of attempted murder.
- Pendleton, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, arguing the jury instructions were erroneous.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's conviction, holding that the instructions were correct and that any error would have been harmless.
- Pendleton then appealed to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Minnesota law require a defendant asserting the 'defense of dwelling' justification for using deadly force to show a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death?
Opinions:
Majority - Gardebring, J.
No. Minnesota law does not require a fear of great bodily harm or death to justify the use of deadly force in preventing the commission of a felony in one's place of abode. The plain language of Minn. Stat. § 609.065 establishes two distinct justifications for the intentional taking of a life: (1) resisting an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes them to great bodily harm or death, and (2) 'preventing the commission of a felony in the actor’s place of abode.' The 'great bodily harm or death' requirement applies only to the first clause (self-defense), not the second (defense of dwelling). To interpret the statute otherwise would render the defense of dwelling clause superfluous, violating principles of statutory construction. The legislature's specific inclusion of the defense of dwelling provision, after an advisory committee recommended its removal, further demonstrates its intent to create a separate defense based solely on protecting one's home. The trial court's jury instructions, which conflated the two defenses by imposing a fear of great bodily harm requirement on the defense of dwelling claim, constituted a material misstatement of the law and were a prejudicial error requiring a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a significant distinction between self-defense and defense of dwelling in Minnesota, effectively strengthening the 'Castle Doctrine' in the state. By removing the 'fear of great bodily harm or death' requirement for defending one's home against a felony, the court lowered the threshold for justifying the use of deadly force in this specific context. The ruling establishes a precedent that a person can justifiably use deadly force to stop a felony like assault or burglary within their home, even if they do not believe their life is in immediate danger. This case serves as a critical reminder to trial courts that jury instructions must precisely reflect statutory distinctions, as conflating separate but similar legal defenses can constitute reversible error.
