State v. Lampkin

994 N.W.2d 280

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Rarity Shemeire Abdul LAMPKIN, Appellant.

A20-0361

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: August 23, 2023

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Kathryn M. Keena, Dakota County Attorney, Heather Pipenhagen, Assistant County Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota, for respondent.

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Michael McLaughlin, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant.

OPINION

HUDSON, Justice.

Appellant Rarity Shemeire Abdul Lampkin was convicted of felony domestic assault-harm under Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subds. 1(2), 4 (2022). On appeal, Lampkin argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the State failed to prove his intent to commit bodily harm beyond a reasonable doubt. Lampkin also argues that the district court plainly erred by instructing the jury that he could use reasonable force to resist an "assault against the person" rather than more broadly to resist any "offense against the person." In a precedential opinion, the court of appeals held that sufficient evidence supports Lampkin's conviction. But the court of appeals concluded that the self-defense jury instruction was erroneous because the use of nonlethal self-defense does not require a person to resist an offense carrying the threat of bodily harm. Nevertheless, the court of appeals held that the jury instruction error was not plain and affirmed Lampkin's conviction.

We conclude that the use of nonlethal self-defense under Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1(3) (2022), requires a person to resist an offense carrying the threat of bodily harm. We further conclude that, on the facts of this case, the district court's use of "assault against the person" in the challenged jury instruction was not error.

Finally, we agree with the court of appeals that the evidence is sufficient to support Lampkin's conviction. We therefore affirm the decision of the court of appeals, but on different grounds.

FACTS

In October 2018, Lampkin was in a romantic relationship with L.W., and they were living together in an apartment with L.W.’s three children. At that time, L.W. was 8 months pregnant with Lampkin's child.

On October 8, 2018, Lampkin left the apartment after he and L.W. got into an argument. Lampkin returned to the apartment the next morning to retrieve a safe, which contained $10,000 in cash from Lampkin's business. As Lampkin tried to leave the apartment with the safe, L.W. began to physically fight him by pushing and hitting him. Lampkin was able to leave their third-floor apartment, but L.W. followed him down the stairs and through the hallway of the apartment building. L.W. then hit Lampkin, which caused him to drop the safe. Lampkin picked the safe up and proceeded to the building's exit door.

Surveillance video captured the ensuing struggle at the exit door. L.W. pulled at and pushed against Lampkin and used her body to block him from getting out the exit door with the safe. L.W. also grabbed onto the door's crossbar, pulling it to keep the door closed while she maintained her position between the door and Lampkin, who was behind her and attempting to leave the building.

Lampkin was able to get past L.W. and briefly exited the building without the safe. Moments later, however, he returned inside to retrieve the safe. L.W. continued to block Lampkin from leaving the building. Lampkin then pulled L.W. from behind, causing her to let go of the door's crossbar and fall to the ground. Lampkin took the safe and left the building.

L.W.’s daughter called 911 and reported that "my dad is fighting my mom." Police officers arrived at the scene after Lampkin had left and discovered L.W. near the exit door with a ripped shirt. L.W. told a responding officer that "she had been pushed down by her boyfriend" and that he "grabbed her from the door and threw her onto the ground." L.W. was taken by paramedics to a hospital, where she similarly told her physician that she "got in a fight with her significant other and was pushed down twice."

Lampkin was charged with felony domestic assault-harm based on two prior domestic assault convictions. ¹ Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subds. 1(2), 4. A jury trial was held, during which L.W. testified for the State and took responsibility for the physical altercation with Lampkin, stating that she "initiated it" and "shouldn't have put [her] hands on him."

Lampkin requested a self-defense jury instruction, arguing that "[t]here was evidence that [L.W.] assaulted [Lampkin] and that she was attempting to prevent him from leaving the building." In pertinent part, the district court provided the following self-defense instruction to the jury:

The defendant asserts the defense of self-defense. "Self-defense" means that the person used reasonable force against [L.W.] to resist an assault against the person and such an offense was being committed or the person reasonably believed that it was.

It is lawful for a person who is resisting an assault against his person and who has reasonable grounds to believe that bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon the person to defend from an attack. In doing so, the person may use all force and means that the person reasonably believed to be necessary and that would appear to a reasonable person in similar circumstances to be necessary to prevent an injury that appears to be imminent.

(Emphasis added.) The district court's jury instruction largely tracked the model jury instruction for self-defense, except that in the model jury instruction, the phrase "offense against the person" is used in lieu of the italicized "assault against the person." See 10 Minn. Dist. Judges Ass'n, Minnesota Practice—Jury Instruction Guides, Criminal , CRIMJIG 7.13 (6th ed. 2022). The model jury instruction defines an "offense against the person" as "an offense of a physical nature with the potential to cause bodily harm." Id. Neither party objected to the jury instruction. The jury found Lampkin guilty as charged.

Lampkin appealed, raising two arguments. First, Lampkin claimed that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the State failed to prove his intent to inflict bodily harm on L.W. beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, Lampkin argued that the district court plainly erred when it instructed the jury on self-defense because the instruction stated that he could only use reasonable force to defend against an "assault" rather than any "offense against the person."

In a precedential opinion, the court of appeals affirmed Lampkin's conviction. State v. Lampkin , 978 N.W.2d 286, 297 (Minn. App. 2022). The court of appeals first determined that the "evidence sufficiently supports the jury's finding that Lampkin intended the act that caused bodily harm." Id. at 290. The court of appeals concluded, however, that the district court erred in instructing the jury on self-defense because the instruction wrongly asked the jury whether Lampkin was resisting an "assault" against himself and whether Lampkin reasonably believed that bodily injury was about to be inflicted on him. See id. at 291. In its analysis, the court of appeals looked to the self-defense statute, which permits reasonable force to be used in self-defense by any person in "resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person." Id. (quoting Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1(3) ). The court of appeals concluded that the plain language of an "offense against the person" does not require that the resisted offense carry the threat of bodily harm. Id. The court of appeals also looked to our precedent, as well as its own precedent, and concluded that language from our decisions supported its plain language reading of Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1(3). See id. at 292–94.

Turning to the facts, the court of appeals recognized that L.W.’s conduct arguably constituted false imprisonment or attempted false imprisonment when she blocked Lampkin from leaving the apartment building, and at that time, she was engaging in an "offense against the person" that he was justified in resisting with reasonable force even though he may not have feared bodily harm. See id. at 291. The court of appeals concluded that even though false imprisonment under Minnesota law does not require a threat of bodily harm, a person can still employ self-defense because section 609.06, subdivision 1(3), allows self-defense to be used against any "offense against the person," not just those carrying the threat of bodily harm. See id. at 295–96. Thus, the court of appeals held that the district court erred in providing an unduly restrictive self-defense instruction with an element of assault and bodily harm. Id.

Nevertheless, because the plain-error standard of review applied, the court of appeals upheld Lampkin's conviction because the district court's error was not plain. Id. at 296. The court of appeals observed that "caselaw so commonly restated the bodily-harm element without the qualification for other types of offenses against the person that the jury instruction guide relied on by district judges and practitioners recommended the unqualified vernacular." Id. Given the lack of clarification in the law, the court of appeals could not conclude that the district court's error was "so clear or obvious at the time of the appeal" as to be plain. Id.

We granted Lampkin's petition for further review.

ANALYSIS

Lampkin argues that the district court committed reversible plain error in instructing the jury on self-defense, and that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to sustain his conviction. We address each argument in turn.

I.

Lampkin first argues that the district court committed reversible plain error in instructing the jury on self-defense. Specifically, Lampkin claims that Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1(3), permits him to use self-defense to broadly resist an "offense against the person," and a threat of...