Opinion
No. C1-98-2052.
Filed July 13, 1999.
Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. 96081510.
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, and Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, Assistant County Attorney, (for respondent)
Douglas W. Thomson, (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge, Short, Judge, and Peterson, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Jorge Clabero Munoz was convicted of second-degree felony murder in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 2(1) (1996). On appeal, Munoz argues the state failed to provide sufficient evidence that he did not act in self-defense. We affirm.
DECISION
Once a defendant has provided evidence to support a claim of self-defense, the state has the burden of disproving the claim beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Buchanan , 431 N.W.2d 542, 548 (Minn. 1988). When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether the state met its burden of proof regarding a self-defense claim, we will not disturb a verdict if, given the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences taken from those facts, a fact-finder could reasonably find the defendant guilty of the offense. State v. Peou , 579 N.W.2d 471, 477 (Minn. 1998). We will not retry the facts, but instead view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume the fact-finder believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence. Id .
Munoz argues the state failed to disprove his self-defense claim. See State v. Boyce , 284 Minn. 242, 254, 170 N.W.2d 104, 112 (1969) (defining elements of self-defense claim). But the record shows: (1) Munoz entered a bar with friends, who appeared underage; (2) the bar owner repeatedly told Munoz and his friends to leave the premises; (3) during the verbal argument with the bar owner, Munoz was standing in front of or near the exit door and his exit was not blocked; (4) other bar patrons tried to stop the argument between Munoz and the bar owner; (5) the bar owner was unarmed and did not hit or injure Munoz; and (6) Munoz stabbed the bar owner, causing the bar owner to die where he fell. Given these facts, we conclude the state provided sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Munoz did not kill the bar owner in self-defense. See Boyce , 284 Minn. at 254, 258, 170 N.W.2d at 112, 114 (noting killing in self-defense must be reasonable exertion of force under circumstances, and can only be done in extreme circumstances when no other practicable means to avoid threatened harm are apparent).