In ordering a new trial for a man convicted of murder for shooting a robber 11 times in the back, the Minnesota Supreme Court continues to tackle questions of how arguments concerning self-defense and the defense of others should be considered as state law.

In July, the court ruled that a person cannot brandish a deadly weapon even when under attack if they have a reasonable ability to retreat. In October, the court ruled that a man deserved a new trial after shooting someone attacking his stepbrother because the legal arguments shift when deadly force is used to protect someone else.

Last week, the court jumped into the self-defense argument again, ordering a new trial for Robert Lee Baker, convicted of second-degree murder for shooting a man who had robbed him, striking him 11 times in the back and killing him.

The Supreme Court ruled the Dakota County District Court and Minnesota Court of Appeals were incorrect when they held that Baker, a St. Paul resident, was the aggressor, and that the jury should not have received instructions on Baker's legal rights of self-defense and defense of others before deliberating.

Baker had been sentenced to 36½ years in prison.

Chief Justice Natalie Hudson wrote the opinion, which was unanimous except for Justice Theodora Gaïtas, who was not on the court when the case was submitted.

The opinion walks a delicate line because Baker got out of his car after he had been robbed and shot his victim in the back. "Whether Baker used a reasonable degree of force is a close call," Hudson writes.

Court documents in the case explain how close.

Baker and his girlfriend were in Baker's car selling drugs to a woman outside a hotel in Eagan in 2020 when two men climbed into the back seat. The men pointed guns at Baker and the women and told them to drive. Shortly afterward they took Baker's wallet, keys, $2,000 in cash and his girlfriend's purse.

Baker had a gun, too, and when the two men got out of the car, he followed and demanded they give back the stolen items. Baker claimed the two robbery suspects raised their guns. Baker fired 16 bullets at Maurice Antonio Anderson, striking him 11 times in the back and killing him.

Police arrested Baker and his girlfriend. In three different statements given to Dakota County investigators, Baker gave differing versions of what happened but all highlighted the robbery and self-defense before the shooting — to which Baker admitted. Police found no gun near Anderson and no additional shell casings at the scene. A BB gun was found in Baker's car. Baker admitted that after he shot Anderson he grabbed the gun used in the robbery, which turned out to be the BB gun.

Baker was charged with second-degree murder and illegal possession of a firearm. He did not testify at his trial.

Before closing arguments, Baker's lawyers argued that the jury should hear instructions on self-defense and defense of others. Prosecutors opposed the motion. Dakota County Judge Michael Mayer ruled against the defense because the robbery was over and Baker "re-engaged" by exiting the car with a gun.

Baker was convicted of both counts. His lawyers appealed.

A Minnesota appeals court panel sided with the district court, writing that Baker "was not content with simply neutralizing Anderson's threat, but was motivated by vengeance."

That argument stemmed from statements made by Baker to police that the victims were running away when he shot at them and phone calls Baker made in prison in which he told his girlfriend he was "mad as hell" the other robbery suspect got away when he started shooting.

The appeals court opinion, written by Judge Michael Kirk, argued, "Baker had not demonstrated the absence of a reasonable possibility of retreat, equally support the conclusion that his use of deadly force was unreasonable." Kirk wrote that "no reasonable jury" would find that Baker's use of force was justifiable so the district court did not "abuse its discretion" by failing to instruct the jury on the law of self-defense and defense of others.

The Minnesota Supreme Court disagreed.

The crux of Hudson's opinion focuses on Baker's right to have self-defense and defense of others considered by the jury at closing arguments, not whether Baker's argument would overturn the guilty verdict.

"A court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the defendant," when it comes to giving jury instructions, Hudson wrote.

Baker presented significant evidence that while he re-engaged with the robbers by exiting the car with a gun and demanding his property back, the robbery was still arguably in progress, she wrote. Could Baker and the two women in his car have reasonably retreated? Hudson argued that if the robbery was still in progress when Baker left the car, and the two robbers raised guns at him when he demanded his property back, he did not have a reasonable ability to retreat.

It was also, "objectively reasonable to believe that the two women, who were also in the assailants' line of fire, had no reasonable means to retreat."

Did Baker use a reasonable amount of force when he shot Anderson 11 times in the back?

While Baker said in a statement that he "chased" the robbers, Hudson writes that the evidence paints a "chaotic scene."

On top of that, a forensic scientist at the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension testified at trial that, because Baker was firing from a .40-caliber Glock handgun, he could have "fired the 16 rounds in just over five seconds" and Baker said that he stopped shooting once Anderson dropped to the ground.

Hudson wrote it's "a close call" as to whether that's reasonable force.

While a reasonable jury could conclude the degree of force was excessive that does not mean every juror would come to the same conclusion, Hudson added. Because of that, the district court should have given the jury instructions on self-defense and defense of others.

Without those instructions, Hudson concluded, "the jurors had to convict Baker of second-degree intentional murder even if they believed he was acting to defend himself or others when he shot and killed Anderson."

That made the error by the Dakota County district court prejudicial and requires a new trial.