The Minnesota Supreme Court this week ordered a new trial for a man convicted of murder for shooting a man assaulting his stepbrother, reasoning that in some cases it could be considered justifiable for a person to use deadly force when they could reasonably flee the situation but someone else is under attack.

Earlier this year, the court determined that an individual cannot brandish a deadly weapon in self-defense if they have a reasonable ability to retreat. But in determining this case, the court explained how the legal calculus changes when a person uses deadly force to protect someone else.

On an August evening in 2021, Julian Valdez was in his garage in Renville, Minn., about 100 miles west of the Twin Cities, when Pablo Gutierrez arrived high on methamphetamine, agitated over a perceived slight and looking for a fight. Gutierrez told Valdez he wanted to see his stepbrother.

When Valdez went into the house to find him, he retrieved a gun from a safe in his bedroom.

The stepbrothers told Gutierrez that there was no problem between them, and Gutierrez calmed down. They told him he could hang out while they drank beer and played pool.

Gutierrez stayed in the garage for about an hour, but the stepbrothers noticed he was acting erratically. As they racked the pool balls for another game, Valdez set a gun in a pocket of the table. Not long after, Gutierrez became aggressive because the two men were laughing. Gutierrez reportedly thought they were laughing at him and threatened to kill them.

Valdez grabbed his gun. His stepbrother was between Gutierrez and the open garage door. Valdez was on the other side of the pool table. He moved around the table. He didn't point the gun at Gutierrez, but he made it "visible to him" and told him to get out.

Gutierrez recognized the threat and began yelling insults at Valdez. "I can see right through you; you scared," Gutierrez reportedly said. He told Valdez he would take the gun and shoot him.

The stepbrother told Gutierrez, "Calm down, bro." At which point, Gutierrez said, "I'm not your bro, bro," and lunged at him. The stepbrother struck him on the head with a pool cue, swinging it "like a baseball bat." Gutierrez stumbled, then continued attacking him.

The stepbrother tripped over a pile of trash outside the garage, and Gutierrez, a much larger man, climbed on top of him. He began strangling the stepbrother, smothering his face and punching him. Valdez testified that he knew Gutierrez was unarmed. His stepbrother was screaming in fear and begging Valdez, "Shoot him!"

Valdez came into the alley of the garage and shot Gutierrez once in the side.

Gutierrez screamed that he had been shot. Valdez told his brother to call 911, and Valdez called his mother. By the time paramedics arrived, Gutierrez had no pulse. A helicopter landed to transport him but the flight crew declared him dead.

Valdez was charged in Renville County with second-degree intentional murder and second-degree unintentional murder. A jury found him guilty of unintentional murder.

Jurors were instructed that Valdez, who was using a "defense-of-others" claim, had a "duty to retreat or avoid the danger if reasonably possible" before shooting Gutierrez.

On appeal, the state Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and sent it back for a new trial. The state appealed that decision, and it was sent to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The 18-page opinion, written by Justice Karl Procaccini, centers on how the courts should consider the duty to retreat before using deadly force when applied to a defense-of-others claim.

State law allows a person to use deadly force when defending someone else, not just themselves. There are four self-defense elements that a defendant must prove at trial to be found not guilty. The state has to disprove at least one of them to get a guilty verdict.

In this case, the four elements would be: that Valdez did not act aggressively or provoke Gutierrez; that Valdez honestly believed that he or his stepbrother was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; that there was reasonable grounds to believe that; and that Valdez could not reasonably retreat to avoid the danger.

That last element was used to convict him. The Renville County jury was told that if Valdez could have reasonably fled the scene, he should not have used deadly force. Valdez argued that if he were to have left, which he testified he could have done, he would have left his stepbrother in grave danger.

While the Supreme Court has "generally stated that a defense-of-others claim 'parallels' self-defense," it has never looked at the specific question of duty to retreat.

Procaccini wrote that there's an "inherent tension" in considering only the defendant's duty to retreat when they are using deadly force to defend someone else. Doing so requires the defendant to "abandon the person in peril" and defeats the entire point of the defense-of-others claim.

Still the opinion notes that even if Valdez had a right to defend his stepbrother, another element had to be taken into consideration: whether or not the stepbrother had the ability to retreat.

The defense-of-others claim states that a person can use reasonable force when they reasonably believe it is necessary to stop someone else from grave danger.

Valdez said he could have tried to hit or kick Gutierrez instead of shooting him but the fact that his stepbrother had already hit him in the head with a pool cue to no avail made him believe it wouldn't have worked.

Valdez also wore a wrist brace for tendonitis, making him question whether he could have pulled Gutierrez off. His stepbrother said he could have fled before the fight began, but once Gutierrez was on top of him, he had no escape.

Procaccini wrote that anyone using a defense-of-others claim must determine, individually, that the person they are defending did not have a "reasonable possibility of safe retreat." That argument would have to be based on all information available at the time that they use deadly force.

The other question Procaccini's opinion addressed was whether the jury being instructed that Valdez had a duty to retreat was harmless or if it had a significant impact on the guilty verdict.

The state argued it had disproved other elements of the defense-of-others claim, including that Valdez provoked Gutierrez by showing his gun and that his use of force was unreasonable. Valdez argued that because he said at trial that he could have retreated, the jury did not determine those other elements.

Procaccini noted that the state's closing arguments at trial focused on Valdez's duty to retreat and that he had admitted he could have left the garage without shooting Gutierrez. Because of the focus on that element, it's impossible to know whether the jury believed Valdez or the state on whether the use of force was justified or if Valdez had provoked Gutierrez.

For all of these reasons, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals ruling that the instructions were not harmless and sent Valdez's case back for a new trial.

There was no dissenting opinion, but Justice Theodora Gaïtas took no part because she was not a member of the court when the case was submitted.