Eagan, MN — A man previously convicted of second-degree intentional murder for a fatal shooting that occurred outside an Eagan hotel has been awarded a new trial. The Minnesota Supreme Court has overturned the previous judgment, citing the trial court’s error in excluding self-defense claims from jury instructions.
Robert Baker was found guilty in the 2020 death of Maurice Anderson. According to the case file, on the evening of Nov. 9, 2020, Baker was allegedly robbed at gunpoint near the hotel. Initially, he denied any involvement in Anderson’s subsequent shooting. However, Baker later disclosed to investigators that he confronted Anderson after the robbery, demanding the return of his possessions.
During this confrontation, Baker claimed that Anderson pointed a gun at him, prompting Baker to shoot Anderson 11 times, including seven shots that struck Anderson from behind. Following the incident, Baker admitted to taking a gun from Anderson, as well as his girlfriend’s cell phone.
Further police investigations revealed a second weapon in Baker’s car, identified as a BB gun resembling a real firearm.
While presenting his defense, Baker’s legal team requested the judge instruct the jury on the possibilities of self-defense and defense of others during the trial. Despite this, the judge ruled against their request, accepting the prosecution’s argument that Baker’s re-engagement after the robbery concluded invalidated his claim of self-defense.
In the trial court’s estimation, Baker had failed to meet the criteria for self-defense, largely because the specific robbery event was over by the time Baker confronted Anderson. The court also found insufficient evidence to prove that Baker was not acting as an aggressor or that he lacked the opportunity to retreat from the situation.
The state Supreme Court, however, has taken a different view in its latest ruling. It stressed that Baker deserved to have the jury consider his self-defense argument, as it is incumbent upon the state to thoroughly disprove self-defense claims. The justices argued that a defendant only needs to present reasonable evidence supporting their claim of self-defense or defense of others to necessitate such jury instructions.
This principle, the justices noted, should apply if there is enough evidence to potentially shift the burden of proof back to the state, compelling it to disprove the defense’s claims beyond a reasonable doubt.
This pivotal ruling underscores a significant legal precedent in Minnesota’s criminal justice system regarding the complexities of self-defense rights and the conditions under which they may be rightfully invoked by defendants.
This latest decision to grant Robert Baker a new trial illuminates the critical importance of jury instructions and the broader implications of judicial decisions in affirming the foundational legal principles of fairness and justice.
Disclaimer: This article was automatically written by Open AI. Please note that details including people, facts, circumstances, and narrations may be inaccurate. Any concerns or requests for removal or corrections of this article can be directed to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.