900 N.W.2d 175
Minn. Ct. App.2017Background
- Natalie Pollard was arrested after calling police on July 2, 2015; her boyfriend O.N. was found unconscious with a chest puncture wound and later died.
- Pollard told investigators she and O.N. fought in her basement, that O.N. had a knife, and that she had also brought and swung a knife during the altercation, claiming it may have been accidental.
- Prosecutor charged Pollard with intentional second-degree murder and second-degree felony murder; she asserted self-defense and defense of dwelling; she was acquitted of intentional murder but convicted of second-degree felony murder.
- At trial the court gave CRIMJIG 7.06 (“justifiable taking of life”) rather than CRIMJIG 7.05 (general self-defense), based on a 2015 renumbering and a perceived fit with precedent.
- Pollard appealed, arguing the court erred by using the justifiable-taking-of-life instruction when she denied intent to kill and instead claimed the death was accidental during self-defense.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding the instruction materially misstated the law and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Pollard's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by giving the justifiable-taking-of-life instruction (CRIMJIG 7.06) instead of the general self-defense instruction (CRIMJIG 7.05) | Court should have given general self-defense because Pollard claimed the death was accidental and did not admit intent to kill | CRIMJIG renumbering and commentary supported using 7.06; prior cases (Hare) suggested 7.06 fit when death was unintended | Error: court misapplied the instruction; CRIMJIG 7.06 (based on 609.065) requires intent-to-kill framework and a greater fear-of-harm standard than 609.06 self-defense, so it was inappropriate here |
| Whether the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Instructional error affected Pollard's defense because jury was told she had to fear death/great bodily harm rather than only imminent bodily harm | Jury convicted felony murder and rejected defense-of-dwelling; evidence Pollard feared death or great bodily harm supports harmlessness | Not harmless: court cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt the error had no significant impact; reversal and new trial required |
| Whether defense-of-dwelling instruction cured the error | Pollard argued defense-of-dwelling differs from personal self-defense and might not cure prejudice | State argued defense-of-dwelling instructed felony prevention and justified killing if preventing a felony in the dwelling | Court rejected cure argument: differences between doctrines mean dwelling instruction may not have remedied the error |
| Whether to strike portions of Pollard's reply brief | Pollard contended her reply responded properly to new matters in state brief | State moved to strike as exceeding permitted scope | Denied: reply brief confined to responding to new matters; motion to strike denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carridine, 812 N.W.2d 130 (Minn. 2012) (held justifiable-taking-of-life instruction improper where defendant claimed death unintended)
- State v. Hare, 575 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 1998) (discusses appropriate instruction selection and need for analytic precision)
- State v. Robinson, 536 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1995) (error found where instruction treated killing as intentional though defendant claimed it was accidental)
- State v. Marquardt, 496 N.W.2d 806 (Minn. 1993) (general self-defense instruction preferred when defendant denies intent to kill)
- State v. Devens, 852 N.W.2d 255 (Minn. 2014) (articulates elements of self-defense under Minn. Stat. § 609.06(1)(3))
- State v. Edwards, 717 N.W.2d 405 (Minn. 2006) (sets elements for justifiable taking of life under Minn. Stat. § 609.065)