Court Opinion

ID: 9883946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:27:08.933381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:33.603129
License: Public Domain

MEYER, Justice
(concurring).
I write separately to emphasize that the district court’s refusal to give a first-degree heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction did not constitute error. In this case, Van Keuren testified that he knew the victim had broken up with him and was dating another man. In addition, the victim had obtained a no-contact order against Van Keuren that was in place at the time of the murder. Van Keuren’s *44claim of provocation fails in this case for the simple fact that he created the situation that provoked his aggression. By his own admission, Van Keuren broke into the victim’s house with a loaded gun and extra ammunition, prepared to shoot himself in the presence of the victim. As the aggressor, he was not entitled to a heat-of-passion instruction. See Stiles v. State, 664 N.W.2d 315 (Minn.2003) (upholding denial of heat-of-passion instruction when defendant was the aggressor).