January 16, 2024—Minnesota Supreme Court Grants Review of Issues Presented in Two Criminal Cases

• 1. Whether the defense-of-others jury instruction was erroneous?

  State v. Valdez, 997 N.W2d 557 (Minn. 2023)

  In October, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a precedential opinion in State v. Valdez, 997 N.W2d 557 (Minn. 2023), reversing Valdez’s second-degree unintentional murder conviction and remanding for a new trial. The court of appeals concluded:

  “In giving a jury instruction concerning the defense-of-others defense, the district court erred by instructing the jury that the defendant had a duty to retreat or avoid the danger if reasonably possible.”

  Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review of the State’s petition for review. The issue presented by the State within its petition is as follows:

  “Whether the district court abused its discretion when it used the standard jury instruction for defense-of-others and instructed the jury that there was a duty to retreat or avoid the danger if reasonably possible; whether any error in the instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the State disproved two elements of defense-of-others: the deadly force used by Responded was clearly unreasonable, and Respondent became the aggressor by producing and brandishing a firearm, forfeiting his right of defense-of-others.”

• 2. Whether a firearm is within “immediate reach” if it is in a locked glove box?

  State v. Moore, A22-1570 (Minn. App. Oct. 16, 2023)

  In October, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a nonprecedential opinion in State v. Moore, A22-1570 (Minn. App. Oct. 16, 2023), affirming Moore’s fist-degree aggravated controlled-substance crime conviction. Moore argued that the firearm that was locked in his glove box was not within his “immediate reach,” which the statute—Minnesota Statutes section 152.021, subdivision 2b(1)—requires. The court of appeals rejected Moore’s argument. The court interpreted the phrase “immediate reach,” which is not defined in the statute, and found that the State proved that the firearm was within his “immediate reach.”

  Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted Moore’s petition for review to decide the following issue:

  “Moore was convicted of aggravated first-degree controlled substance crime for possessing a mixture, which contained methamphetamine and weighed more than 100 grams, that was found in the locked glove box of the car he was driving along with a firearm. Must Moore’s aggravated first-degree controlled substance crime convictions be reversed because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm in the locked glove box was within his ‘immediate reach’ as required by the statute?”