This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A25-0870
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. A. A., Child.
Filed April 6, 2026 Affirmed Ross, Judge
Carver County District Court File No. 10-JV-24-105
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Chang Y. Lau, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant A.A.A.)
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Mark Metz, Carver County Attorney, Martha E. Mattheis, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Chaska, Minnesota (for respondent State of Minnesota)
Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Bratvold,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
ROSS, Judge
Juvenile A.A.A. brandished a kitchen knife to ward off his drunk stepfather in their
kitchen after the two fought in the garage. Facing charges of second-degree assault with a
dangerous weapon, misdemeanor assault (fear), misdemeanor domestic assault (attempted
harm), and threats of violence, A.A.A. maintained at his bench trial that brandishing the
knife was a justified act of self-defense. The district court rejected the defense and found
A.A.A. guilty of only the first two charges. In this appeal in which A.A.A. argues that the evidence does not support the guilty verdict, we affirm the district court’s basis for rejecting
A.A.A.’s claim of self-defense because we defer to the district court’s credibility finding
that he lacked an honest belief that he was in imminent danger.
FACTS
Because seventeen-year-old A.A.A.’s appeal rests on his argument that the state’s
evidence does not disprove his self-defense claim, we describe the facts in the light most
favorable to the district court’s verdict. See State v. Griffin, 887 N.W.2d 257, 263 (Minn.
2016). The district court heard evidence supporting the following account.
When A.A.A.’s mother returned home after work one evening in May 2024, she
found A.A.A.’s stepfather drunk in their kitchen. Hearing the two argue, A.A.A. came into
the kitchen from his bedroom. When he heard his stepfather curse at his mother, he
intervened in her defense, demanding that his stepfather not speak to her that way. Like his
mother, A.A.A. could tell his stepfather was intoxicated.
A.A.A. left the kitchen and entered the attached garage. He began smashing a case
of beer onto the floor. His stepfather, enraged, stormed into the garage, grabbed A.A.A.
around the torso, and slammed him onto the hood of a car. He then wrestled A.A.A. to the
floor and mounted him. But A.A.A. bested his stepfather, rolling on top of him in a
dominant fighting position. His mother then entered the garage and separated them.
A.A.A. and his mother walked into the kitchen, and his stepfather followed behind.
That’s when A.A.A. grabbed a chef’s knife from a butcher’s block, raised it above his head,
and turned toward his stepfather, who was standing at the other end of the kitchen with
A.A.A.’s mother standing between them. A.A.A. said something to the effect of, “You
2 want to mess with a . . . mentally ill kid, go for it.” His stepfather then turned away, walked
out of the house onto the patio, and sat down.
Three deputies arrived, investigated, and arrested both A.A.A. and his stepfather.
The state filed a juvenile-delinquency petition charging A.A.A. with second-degree assault
with a dangerous weapon in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.222, subdivision
1 (2022), domestic assault as intent to cause fear in violation of Minnesota Statutes section
609.2242, subdivision 1(1) (2022), domestic assault as an attempt to cause bodily harm in
violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.2242, subdivision 1(2) (2022), and felony
threats of violence in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.713, subdivision 1
(2022). The district court set the case for trial.
A.A.A. argued at his bench trial that he pulled the knife in self-defense. He testified
on his own behalf, stating at times that he felt afraid that his stepfather would attack him
or his mother after they returned inside the house and at other times that he felt “anger and
rage.” The state also introduced the body-camera footage of the responding deputies, which
captures A.A.A. telling one of them that he was about to “absolutely start mauling” his
stepfather in the garage, implying that he would have done so had his mother not
intervened.
The district court rejected A.A.A.’s self-defense claim. It found that, although the
state failed to disprove that he was not the initial aggressor, A.A.A. did not have an actual
and honest belief that he or his mother was in physical danger, such a belief would not have
been reasonable under these circumstances, and A.A.A. responded with too much force by
brandishing a knife. The district court found A.A.A. guilty of second-degree assault and
3 domestic assault (fear) but not guilty of the other charged offenses. It continued A.A.A.’s
charges without adjudicating him delinquent, conditioned on probationary terms for six
months.
A.A.A. appeals.
DECISION
A.A.A. asks us to reverse the district court’s decision finding him guilty, arguing
that the evidence is insufficient to disprove that he brandished the knife in self-defense or
in defense of his mother from his stepfather. He bases this argument on the requirement
that, once a defendant meets the burden of production to present a self-defense claim, the
burden shifts to the state to disprove it. State v. Baker, 13 N.W.3d 401, 409 (Minn. 2024).
We review the record to determine whether the facts and legitimate inferences drawn from
them support the guilty verdict. Griffin, 887 N.W.2d at 263. For the following reasons,
A.A.A.’s argument does not lead us to reverse.
The state presented sufficient evidence to defeat A.A.A.’s claim of self-defense. A
self-defense claim typically involves four elements: (1) the defendant was not the initial
aggressor; (2) the defendant had an “actual and honest belief” that he was in imminent
danger; (3) the defendant’s belief was reasonable; and (4) the defendant could not
reasonably avoid the danger by retreating. Baker, 13 N.W.3d at 409; see also Minn. Stat.
§ 609.06, subd. 1(3) (2022). A defense-of-others defense follows similarly but focuses on
whether the defendant acted reasonably in defending another person. See State v. Valdez,
12 N.W.3d 191, 198–99 (Minn. 2024). The state defeats the defendant’s self-defense claim
4 if it disproves even one of the four elements. Baker, 13 N.W.3d at 409–10. We focus here
on the second element—an actual and honest belief of imminent danger.
We must affirm the district court’s rejection of A.A.A.’s self-defense claim because
we are bound by its credibility determination that A.A.A. did not actually believe that his
stepfather placed him or his mother in imminent danger. It is rare that a defendant testifies
against his own mental state affecting a mens rea element, but it occurred here. A.A.A.’s
testimony that he felt “anger and rage” when he drew the knife and his contemporaneous
statement that, before his mother separated him from his stepfather during the garage fight,
he was about to “absolutely start mauling” his stepfather support the district court’s factual
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A25-0870
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. A. A., Child.
Filed April 6, 2026 Affirmed Ross, Judge
Carver County District Court File No. 10-JV-24-105
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Chang Y. Lau, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant A.A.A.)
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Mark Metz, Carver County Attorney, Martha E. Mattheis, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Chaska, Minnesota (for respondent State of Minnesota)
Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Bratvold,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
ROSS, Judge
Juvenile A.A.A. brandished a kitchen knife to ward off his drunk stepfather in their
kitchen after the two fought in the garage. Facing charges of second-degree assault with a
dangerous weapon, misdemeanor assault (fear), misdemeanor domestic assault (attempted
harm), and threats of violence, A.A.A. maintained at his bench trial that brandishing the
knife was a justified act of self-defense. The district court rejected the defense and found
A.A.A. guilty of only the first two charges. In this appeal in which A.A.A. argues that the evidence does not support the guilty verdict, we affirm the district court’s basis for rejecting
A.A.A.’s claim of self-defense because we defer to the district court’s credibility finding
that he lacked an honest belief that he was in imminent danger.
FACTS
Because seventeen-year-old A.A.A.’s appeal rests on his argument that the state’s
evidence does not disprove his self-defense claim, we describe the facts in the light most
favorable to the district court’s verdict. See State v. Griffin, 887 N.W.2d 257, 263 (Minn.
2016). The district court heard evidence supporting the following account.
When A.A.A.’s mother returned home after work one evening in May 2024, she
found A.A.A.’s stepfather drunk in their kitchen. Hearing the two argue, A.A.A. came into
the kitchen from his bedroom. When he heard his stepfather curse at his mother, he
intervened in her defense, demanding that his stepfather not speak to her that way. Like his
mother, A.A.A. could tell his stepfather was intoxicated.
A.A.A. left the kitchen and entered the attached garage. He began smashing a case
of beer onto the floor. His stepfather, enraged, stormed into the garage, grabbed A.A.A.
around the torso, and slammed him onto the hood of a car. He then wrestled A.A.A. to the
floor and mounted him. But A.A.A. bested his stepfather, rolling on top of him in a
dominant fighting position. His mother then entered the garage and separated them.
A.A.A. and his mother walked into the kitchen, and his stepfather followed behind.
That’s when A.A.A. grabbed a chef’s knife from a butcher’s block, raised it above his head,
and turned toward his stepfather, who was standing at the other end of the kitchen with
A.A.A.’s mother standing between them. A.A.A. said something to the effect of, “You
2 want to mess with a . . . mentally ill kid, go for it.” His stepfather then turned away, walked
out of the house onto the patio, and sat down.
Three deputies arrived, investigated, and arrested both A.A.A. and his stepfather.
The state filed a juvenile-delinquency petition charging A.A.A. with second-degree assault
with a dangerous weapon in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.222, subdivision
1 (2022), domestic assault as intent to cause fear in violation of Minnesota Statutes section
609.2242, subdivision 1(1) (2022), domestic assault as an attempt to cause bodily harm in
violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.2242, subdivision 1(2) (2022), and felony
threats of violence in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.713, subdivision 1
(2022). The district court set the case for trial.
A.A.A. argued at his bench trial that he pulled the knife in self-defense. He testified
on his own behalf, stating at times that he felt afraid that his stepfather would attack him
or his mother after they returned inside the house and at other times that he felt “anger and
rage.” The state also introduced the body-camera footage of the responding deputies, which
captures A.A.A. telling one of them that he was about to “absolutely start mauling” his
stepfather in the garage, implying that he would have done so had his mother not
intervened.
The district court rejected A.A.A.’s self-defense claim. It found that, although the
state failed to disprove that he was not the initial aggressor, A.A.A. did not have an actual
and honest belief that he or his mother was in physical danger, such a belief would not have
been reasonable under these circumstances, and A.A.A. responded with too much force by
brandishing a knife. The district court found A.A.A. guilty of second-degree assault and
3 domestic assault (fear) but not guilty of the other charged offenses. It continued A.A.A.’s
charges without adjudicating him delinquent, conditioned on probationary terms for six
months.
A.A.A. appeals.
DECISION
A.A.A. asks us to reverse the district court’s decision finding him guilty, arguing
that the evidence is insufficient to disprove that he brandished the knife in self-defense or
in defense of his mother from his stepfather. He bases this argument on the requirement
that, once a defendant meets the burden of production to present a self-defense claim, the
burden shifts to the state to disprove it. State v. Baker, 13 N.W.3d 401, 409 (Minn. 2024).
We review the record to determine whether the facts and legitimate inferences drawn from
them support the guilty verdict. Griffin, 887 N.W.2d at 263. For the following reasons,
A.A.A.’s argument does not lead us to reverse.
The state presented sufficient evidence to defeat A.A.A.’s claim of self-defense. A
self-defense claim typically involves four elements: (1) the defendant was not the initial
aggressor; (2) the defendant had an “actual and honest belief” that he was in imminent
danger; (3) the defendant’s belief was reasonable; and (4) the defendant could not
reasonably avoid the danger by retreating. Baker, 13 N.W.3d at 409; see also Minn. Stat.
§ 609.06, subd. 1(3) (2022). A defense-of-others defense follows similarly but focuses on
whether the defendant acted reasonably in defending another person. See State v. Valdez,
12 N.W.3d 191, 198–99 (Minn. 2024). The state defeats the defendant’s self-defense claim
4 if it disproves even one of the four elements. Baker, 13 N.W.3d at 409–10. We focus here
on the second element—an actual and honest belief of imminent danger.
We must affirm the district court’s rejection of A.A.A.’s self-defense claim because
we are bound by its credibility determination that A.A.A. did not actually believe that his
stepfather placed him or his mother in imminent danger. It is rare that a defendant testifies
against his own mental state affecting a mens rea element, but it occurred here. A.A.A.’s
testimony that he felt “anger and rage” when he drew the knife and his contemporaneous
statement that, before his mother separated him from his stepfather during the garage fight,
he was about to “absolutely start mauling” his stepfather support the district court’s factual
finding that A.A.A. lacked an actual and honest belief that he or his mother was in
imminent danger of harm. We recognize that A.A.A. also stated that he feared that his
stepfather would attack him or his mother and that these statements would support a factual
finding that his concern about danger was actual and honest. But we do not find facts on
appeal or resolve inconsistencies in the evidence bearing on the facts. We instead approach
the facts under a deferential standard that requires us to assume that the fact-finder
disbelieved any testimony conflicting with the verdict. State v. Leake, 699 N.W.2d 312,
319 (Minn. 2005). As we are in no position to second-guess the district court’s
determination that A.A.A. testified credibly to his anger but incredibly to his fear, we
cannot reverse the district court’s finding that the state disproved this element. And because
the state need disprove only one element of a self-defense claim to defeat it, we must affirm
the verdict.
5 We are not persuaded otherwise by our recognition that the state failed to disprove
the remaining elements of A.A.A.’s self-defense claim. The record supports the district
court’s assessment that his stepfather was clearly the original aggressor and that neither
A.A.A. nor his mother had a duty to retreat, as they were in their own home. See State v.
Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392, 402 (Minn. 2001). Given his stepfather’s state of intoxication
and his apparently unprecedented, violent overreaction to A.A.A.’s destruction of his beer,
a factual basis existed to support A.A.A.’s assertion that he believed that he was in
imminent danger even though the garage fight had ended. His stepfather was no less
intoxicated when the trio entered the kitchen and he had given A.A.A. no reason to assume
that his disproportionately enraged emotions had dissipated. And while defendants must
use a reasonable degree of force when acting in self-defense, Baker, 13 N.W.3d at 409,
A.A.A. presents a plausible argument that his knife-brandishing may have been reasonable
here as a means of discouraging his stepfather from reinitiating a violent attack on him. We
do not address these issues, however, because the district court’s credibility determination,
which is not clearly erroneous, precludes the need for any further analysis.
Affirmed.