Appeals court orders new homicide trial, citing inconsistent jury instructions

Listen to this article

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ordered a new trial for a man sentenced to over a decade in prison for second-degree unintentional murder. In State of Minnesota v. Julian Daniel Valdez, filed Oct. 16, the court determined that a jury instruction given by the district court was not a harmless error.

The following facts were presented in the court’s opinion:

Julian Valdez was socializing with his stepbrother in August 2021. A man, who appeared to Valdez to be breathing heavily and angered, asked Valdez if his stepbrother was at the residence. Valdez went in the house to get his stepbrother, but, while he was in the home, he grabbed a .45-caliber pistol from the safe.

The stepbrother also observed that the individual was agitated. The three prepared to play a game of pool when the individual’s expression became “mean.” He then proceeded to threaten to kill the two of them. Valdez got out his pistol and ordered him to leave. This did not deter the individual, who instead came toward them. The stepbrother attempted to swing a pool cue at the aggressor, but it did not stop him from choking the stepbrother. The stepbrother, who was significantly smaller than the aggressor, fell backwards into an alley, pleaded for his life, and told his stepbrother to shoot the assailant. Valdez complied and shot him.

The stepbrothers called 911. When first responders arrived, there was no pulse. Valdez was charged with second-degree intentional murder and second-degree unintentional murder.

A jury heard the case in May 2022. The district court, over Valdez’s counsel’s objection, instructed the jury that Valdez had a “duty to retreat or avoid the danger if reasonably possible” on his defense-of-others defense. The jury found Valdez guilty of second-degree unintentional murder. Valdez was sentenced to 150 months of imprisonment.

Valdez appealed, arguing that the district court erred when it instructed the jury that he had a duty to retreat with respect to his defense-of-others defense. The court had scant precedent to consider. “The Supreme Court has not considered whether the right to use reasonable force to defend another person is subject to a duty to retreat,” the appellate court noted. “The Supreme Court has stated generally, in a footnote, that the defense-of-others ‘parallels’ the self-defense defense.”

“This instruction required him to just leave his brother to fend for himself before using force and it negates his right to use force to defend [stepbrother] under the statute,” said Andrea Barts, assistant public defender, who represented Valdez. “It doesn’t make sense because it required Valdez to run away before defending [his stepbrother] and that contradicts the statute, which allows Valdez to defend his brother.”

“The issue about retreat is if it is reasonably possible,” argued Scott Hersey, special assistant Renville County attorney. “In this particular case, it was reasonably possible.”

The appellate court agreed with Valdez that the jury instruction was inconsistent with the statutory right to use reasonable force to help a reason who is resisting offensive behavior that threatens bodily harm. It found that the jury instruction did not regard whether the stepbrother could have retreated or if the step-brother would have survived the ongoing attack.

“The practical effect of the district court’s instruction would be to retroactively impose on Valdez a requirement that, to avoid criminal liability, he had to abandon [his stepbrother] and leave him in danger of bodily harm or death,” the court wrote. “The district court’s instruction is inconsistent with Valdez’s statutory right to defend Munguia against Gutierrez’s attack.”

Judge Michael Kirk concurred specially. “Valdez did not suddenly become the aggressor and he did not provoke Gutierrez by brandishing his pistol after Gutierrez threatened to kill them,” Kirk argued. “Here, Gutierrez verbally threatened to use deadly force against Valdez and [stepbrother]. Such a threat of imminent danger entitled Valdez to respond displaying his pistol.”

Kirk also highlighted the stress and immediacy of the situation. “[I]t is unlikely that Valdez or any other similarly situated person would have the capacity to calmly consider what other options might be available to stop it,” Kirk concluded. “Valdez had only seconds to determine what to do to save his brother from potentially serious bodily harm or death.”

Because Kirk found that the trial record could support the jury’s decision that Valdez acted reasonably, he determined that Valdez was entitled to a new trial with proper jury instructions on the defense-of-others defense.