Minnesota high court sets self-defense precedent in machete case: retreat before brandishing weapon

In a split decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that even when a person is threatened or under attack they can’t brandish a deadly weapon if it is “reasonably possible to retreat.”

A dissent called the ruling unprecedented in American judicial history.

The case stemmed from a knife and machete altercation in downtown Minneapolis, zeroing in on the specific question of whether a person can claim self-defense when they are charged with felony second-degree assault–fear with a dangerous weapon. Under Minnesota law, a person commits assault–fear by acting with the “intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death.”

Self-defense typically involves a defendant claiming the reason they pulled out a deadly weapon was because they felt threatened by another person.

On a June night in 2021, Earley Romero Blevins of Minneapolis got into an altercation with a man and woman he knew on the light-rail platform near U.S. Bank Stadium. Words were exchanged between Blevins and the woman and an argument ensued. The other man had a knife and told Blevins to come into the platform shelter away from surveillance cameras so he could “slice Blevins’ throat.”

Blevins then pulled a machete out of his waistband and moved toward the man and woman while holding the machete. Another man attempted to intervene and Blevins began yelling and swinging the machete at them for about one minute, causing them to retreat.

The majority opinion in the 4-2 split decision was written by Justice Margaret Chutich. She wrote that longstanding Minnesota law says that a person needs to retreat when reasonably possible, even when facing bodily harm. The idea that they can stand their ground, escalate the situation, as Blevins argued, and brandish a deadly weapon “in the uncertain hope that it will cause the initial aggressor to back down — is unsound.”

Chutich added that the court views this as a “narrow” extension of the already established duty to retreat when possible. It also strictly is limited to second-degree assault–fear with a dangerous weapon, and does not include cases without a dangerous weapon.

In a dissent, Justice Paul Thissen took to task the idea that the decision stuck to legal precedent or was narrow.

“This new rule is not only unprecedented in this state — as far as I am aware, the rule has never been adopted anywhere in the United States,” Thissen wrote. “Until now, the collective wisdom of judges nationwide over hundreds of years has never imposed a duty to retreat before making threats to deter an aggressor.”

He added that Minnesota’s self-defense statue asserts that reasonable force may be used against another to resist an offense against that person. Thissen’s dissent argued that Blevins conviction should be reversed and a new trial should be held to determine if Blevins’ threatening behavior was reasonable.

Justice Karl Procaccini joined Thissen in his dissent, while Justice Sarah Hennesy didn’t participate. Signing on to the majority were Chief Justice Natalie Hudson and Justices Anne McKeig and Gordon Moore. Wednesday was Chutich’s final day on the court; Justice Theodora Gaïtas starts her term Thursday.

Blevins was convicted of two counts of felony second-degree assault with a deadly weapon in Hennepin County on January 3, 2022, and was sentenced to 39 months in prison. He was released August 1, 2023. The Minnesota Department of Corrections currently lists him as a wanted fugitive and he is due in Hennepin County court next week for giving a false name to a peace officer and loitering with an open bottle.

The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office had no comment on the case, and the attorneys who represented Blevins did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Rob Doar, vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, said it has been long-standing case law since 1997 that there is a duty to retreat before a deadly weapon is used in self-defense. What Wednesday’s ruling establishes, he maintained, “is you can’t even present a weapon before utilizing any retreat options.”

Doar said the details of Blevins’ case don’t particularly matter compared to the impact the courts’ ruling could have. “This is one of those scenarios we call ‘Bad facts make bad law,’” he said.

He then gave an example of how the new law might be applied in a way that affects Minnesota gun owners.

“Let’s say you have a permit to carry and you have a firearm, somebody pulls out a knife and you draw your firearm out instinctively to respond to that threat,” Doar hypothesized. “Under old rules, you’re completely fine. Under the new rules you have to first look for a means of retreat before even drawing that firearm out. That is just inconceivable from a mere human reaction standpoint.”

Chutich’s opinion, however, was largely not focused on that instinctual reaction, but rather on when a person can legally brandish a weapon “capable of producing death or great bodily harm in self-defense.” Chutich rejected the idea of the inherent right for a defendant to stand their ground and escalate a situation, writing Minnesota law has rejected that for more than 150 years.

Blevins had argued that if he were to have looked to escape it would have “required him to turn away from the people who were threatening him.” But Chutich wrote that surveillance video from the light rail station “clearly show Blevins had room behind him to retreat and could have walked at an angle, keeping an eye on the woman and the two men, while he retreated.”

Doar argued that kind of argument is built entirely on hindsight over a split-second decision and why the rule has primarily pertained to using deadly force.

“Duty to retreat is always subjective,” he said. “That’s how the courts have traditionally treated it. Did it have to be the firearm? Was there anything else prior to use of deadly force? That’s where the problem arises with this: Now you have to run that calculus before even deciding to draw your firearm.”