Minnesota
Under Minnesota law, a person may use “reasonable force” against another “in resisting . . . an offense against the person.”
Minn. Stat. § 609.06. A defendant is justified in “resisting” an offense only if the defendant
(1) has an actual and
(2) reasonable belief that serious bodily harm is imminent,
(3) does not provoke the incident, and
(4) has no reasonable opportunity to retreat.
See State v. Basting, 572 N.W.2d 281, 285 (Minn. 1997). The amount of force that is “reasonable” will depend on the circumstances and presents a question of fact.
State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392, 402-03 (Minn. 2001).
Minnesota's statutes also provide for “defense of dwelling” and states in part:
[R]easonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or
(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property.
Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1(3)-(4).
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
Minn. Stat. § 609.065.
In 1999,
State v. Carothers addressed the duty to retreat in the home.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/9906/c89886.htm
Having concluded that the imposition of a duty to retreat would be improper in defense of dwelling situations, we see no sound reason to impose a duty to retreat when those same circumstances are characterized as self-defense within the home. Because the issue of the duty to retreat attaching to self-defense occurring within the home is not directly before us, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to attempt to fully explicate when a duty to retreat might or might not apply to self-defense within the home. It is sufficient to note that where the circumstances of a case support a defense of dwelling claim based on the prevention of a felony in the home consistent with Pendleton, the duty to retreat does not apply whether the defense is labeled defense of dwelling or self-defense. Courts and counsel should look to circumstances alleged to give rise to the defense, rather than the labels attached.
We emphasize that a person claiming defense of dwelling is still subject to strictures insuring the reasonableness of his or her behavior. Defense of dwelling and self-defense within the dwelling serve a defensive and not offensive purpose, and do not confer a license to kill or to inflict great bodily harm merely because the offense occurs within the home. See Gainer, 391 A.2d at 862. It may be more reasonable for a person to advance towards or retreat from a danger within his or her home in different circumstances, and that decision should be left to the jury. When faced with a defense of dwelling claim, the jury must determine (1) whether the killing was done to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling, (2) whether the defendant's judgment as to the gravity of the situation was reasonable under the circumstances, and (3) whether the defendant's election to defend his or her dwelling was such as a reasonable person would have made in light of the danger to be apprehended. See Pendleton, 567 N.W.2d at 270 (relying on State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 253, 170 N.W.2d 104, 112 (1969)). See also Gainer, 391 A.2d at 862-63 (no duty to retreat when using deadly force in defense of dwelling or self-defense in the home so long as actions meet other requirements of defense of dwelling or self-defense).
So, subject to a “reasonableness” requirement, there is no duty to retreat in the home.
In tort law, as well as in areas of criminal law such as self-defense, the "reasonable person" is a hypothetical individual who is intended to represent a sort of "average" citizen. The ability of this hypothetical individual is consulted in the process of making legal decisions. The question, "How would a reasonable person act under the same or similar circumstances" performs a critical role in legal reasoning”?
State v Glowacki later addressed the co-occupant issue, holding “There is no duty to retreat from one’s own home when acting in self-defense in the home regardless of whether the aggressor is a co-resident, although any use of force must be reasonable under the specific circumstances of each case.”
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/0107/c8991507.htm
Typical instructions to the jury look like this:
CRIMJIG 7.05: "Self Defense--Causing Death."
No crime is committed when a person takes the life of another; even intentionally if Defendant's actions -- action is taken in resisting or preventing an offense which Defendant reasonably believes exposes the Defendant to death or great bodily harm.
In order for a killing to be justified for this reason three conditions must be met. First, the killing must have been done in the belief that it was necessary to avert death or great bodily harm. Second, the judgment of the Defendant as to the gravity of the peril to which he was exposed must have been reasonable under the circumstances. Third, Defendant's election to defend must have been such as a reasonable person would have made in light of the danger perceived and the existence of any alternative way of avoiding the peril. All three conditions must be met, but the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not act in self-defense.
CRIMJIG 7.06 SELF DEFENSE--DEATH NOT THE RESULT
Defendant is not guilty of a crime, if defendant used reasonable force against ______ to resist (or to aid ______ in resisting) an offense against the person, and such an offense was being committed or defendant reasonably believed that it was.
It is lawful for a person who is being assaulted and who has reasonable grounds to believe that bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon the person, to defend from such attack, and in doing so the person may use all force and means which the person believes to be reasonably necessary and which would appear to a reasonable person, in similar circumstances to be necessary to prevent the injury which appears to be imminent.
The kind and degree of force which a person may lawfully use in self-defense is limited by what a reasonable person in the same situation would believe to be necessary. Any use of force beyond that is regarded by the law as excessive.
(The rule of self-defense does not authorize one to seek revenge or to take into his own hands the punishment of an offender.)
To edit the type of jury instructions given above, I argue specific wording and often file complex arguments of authority. The end result will be a tailored jury instruction for a particular case.
Note: This post was written while doing that most Minnesotan of all things - watching the Packers beat the Vikings!