Man granted new trial in deadly Eagan shooting due to bad jury instructions

(FOX 9) - The man convicted in a deadly shooting outside an Eagan hotel has been granted a new trial following a ruling from the Minnesota Supreme Court, in which justices found the court should have allowed self-defense arguments during jury instructions.

Background

Robert Baker was charged and later convicted of second-degree intentional murder in the shooting of Maurice Anderson back in 2020.

According to court documents, Baker had been robbed at gunpoint near a hotel in Eagan on the night of Nov. 9, 2020. Speaking with police, Baker initially denied shooting Anderson. However, he later admitted that he had confronted the shooting victim after being robbed. The court docs state that Baker told the accused robbers to "give him [his] sh-t back".

Baker claimed Anderson raised his gun at Baker, prompting Baker to open fire. Police said Anderson was shot 11 times, including seven shots that hit him from behind.

After the shooting, Baker said he took a gun from Anderson, as well as his girlfriend's cell phone. 

Police say they recovered a second weapon from Baker's car that turned out to be a BB gun but looked like a real gun. 

Trial

Before closing arguments, the defense asked the judge to provide jury instructions on self-defense and defense of others. Prosecutors argued against the inclusion and the judge sided with the prosecution.

The court did allow self-defense arguments during openings, but ultimately ruled not to instruct jurors on self-defense.

According to court documents, the judge ruled that the shooting didn't meet the standards of self-defense because the robbery was over before Baker re-engaged. The judge also determined the defense failed to prove Baker was not the aggressor – since he confronted the victim after the fact – and that he didn't have the means to retreat.

Ruling

In its ruling, the state Supreme Court said Baker was entitled to have self-defense considered, arguing the burden is on the state to disprove self-defense arguments.

Justices wrote: "The proper standard for determining whether a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense or defense of others is whether the defendant produced reasonable evidence to support their claim, and, if so, whether such evidence was sufficient to shift the burden to the State to disprove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt."