Minnesota Supreme Court Orders New Trial for Robert Lee Baker in Self-Defense Case
EAGAN, MINNESOTA—The Minnesota Supreme Court has reversed the conviction of Robert Lee Baker III, remanding the case for a new trial after determining that the Dakota County District Court erred by failing to instruct the jury on self-defense and defense of others. The ruling, issued on November 25, 2024, marks a significant development in a case that has drawn attention for its complex legal questions surrounding the use of deadly force.
Background of the Case
Baker was convicted of second-degree intentional murder following the fatal shooting of Maurice Anderson during a robbery in December 2020. According to court documents, Anderson and an accomplice robbed Baker and his girlfriend at gunpoint in their car. As the robbers fled with Baker’s property, he exited the vehicle armed with a firearm and demanded the return of his belongings. Anderson raised his gun in response, and Baker shot and killed him.
The district court denied Baker’s request for jury instructions on self-defense and defense of others, concluding that he failed to demonstrate he was not the initial aggressor and lacked a reasonable opportunity to retreat. The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but shifted its reasoning, determining that Baker’s use of deadly force was unreasonable as a matter of law.
Supreme Court Decision
In its unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts, finding that Baker presented sufficient evidence to warrant jury instructions on self-defense and defense of others. Justice Natalie Hudson wrote for the court that a jury, rather than a court, should evaluate whether Baker acted reasonably under the circumstances.
“The evidence presented was sufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude that Baker was not the initial aggressor and that his actions were justified under the circumstances,” the court ruled. The opinion emphasized the need for courts to resolve doubts about self-defense claims in favor of defendants, allowing juries to assess the credibility of evidence.
Key Legal Standards Clarified
The court’s decision reiterated the four elements required for a self-defense claim:
Absence of aggression or provocation by the defendant.
A reasonable and honest belief of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
The existence of reasonable grounds for that belief.
The absence of a reasonable possibility of retreat.
Additionally, the court highlighted that the degree of force used must be reasonable under the circumstances, and a determination is best left to a jury.
Implications and Next Steps
This ruling vacates Baker’s conviction, a sentence of 36 and a half years, and grants him a new trial where a jury will consider whether his actions were justified under the law. According to the Dakota County Attorney’s Office, they plan to retry the case.
The Supreme Court officially filed its judgment reversing the district court’s decision on November 25, 2024. The order, signed by Christa Rutherford-Block, Clerk of the Appellate Courts, states that the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
On November 27, 2024, Baker’s bail was set at $1.5 million with no conditions and $1 million with conditions. His next review hearing is set for December 17, 2024, at 9 AM in Hastings, Minnesota. His bail has not been paid, and he remains in custody.
Written by: Will Wight
