This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).


State of Minnesota,


Jorge Clabero Munoz,

Filed July 13, 1999
Short, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 96081510

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and

Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)

Douglas W. Thomson, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W-1260, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge, Short, Judge, and Peterson, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

SHORT, Judge

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.


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).