By Josh Moniz, Mankato Free Press

WASECA — The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled against the Waseca man who appealed his assault conviction based on a legal challenge of the scope of Minnesota’s “defense of dwelling” laws.

Daniel Devens, 51, encountered an intoxicated man in October 2011 in the shared hallway outside of his apartment. He ordered the man to leave. They ended up struggling and both men fell down the stairs.

The intoxicated man suffered injuries that required him to be hospitalized for a week. Devens was charged with felony first- and third-degree assault and misdemeanor fifth-degree assault. He was convicted of the third-degree and fifth-degree charges.

Devens appealed based on the self-defense instruction provided to the jury, which indicated he had a duty to retreat. He argued his “defense of dwelling” rights, which provided greater freedom for self-defense in the home, applied to the shared hallway.

Minnesota law requires people to retreat from an incident if possible because it’s assumed they have a place to go — home. Similarly, “defense of dwelling” laws allow more freedom because there isn’t a place for retreat.

Devens argued the shared hallway should have the same “defense of dwelling” protection extended to porches. He also argued the protection applied because he lived in a “secured building.”

The Supreme Court denied his argument based on several factors:

Devens didn’t have exclusive ownership of the hallway, so he is required to tolerate the guests of other tenants.

His argument could potentially increase the number of deadly confrontations. Notably, Devens left a secure area to confront the man in a non-exclusive area.

His argument about a “secured building” implies that self-defense rights could be extended to non-exclusive areas based on whether an entrance was locked or had a lock.

The Supreme Court declined to formally address the questions Devens raised about the state’s definition of what constitutes a “home.” However, the judges noted during oral arguments that his argument could have the unintended consequences of extending “defense of dwelling” laws to areas such as hotel swimming pools.

The Supreme Court affirmed Waseca County District Court’s jury instruction and ruling.