TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — A Kansas man whose murder charge was dismissed under the state’s Stand Your Ground law will now face prosecution in the stabbing death of a 22-year-old woman, the Kansas Court of Appeals has ruled.

The court overturned a decision by a district judge who dismissed second-degree murder and other charges against Seth Collins, 38, in the April 2016 stabbing death of Kayla Brown. The two had been fighting over a parking space at a Wichita apartment complex.

The appeals court ruled Friday that a jury, not a judge, should decide whether Collins’ actions were justified.

The Stand Your Ground law allows people to use deadly force if they reasonably believe it’s necessary to protect themselves from death or great bodily harm.

The confrontation began when Collins tried to park at the apartment building but couldn’t because a car next to the space had its door open and Shayla Brown, who is Kayla Brown’s twin sister, was standing in the space talking to a friend, Luz Toral.

“It was disputed whether Collins politely asked Shayla to move so that he could park his car in that space. What was undisputed was that Collins and Shayla got into a verbal argument that included an exchange of racial and other insults,” the appeals court said.

Collins and the three women, their mother and another friend, eventually got into a physical confrontation. Collins returned to his apartment but went back outside to retrieve his eyeglasses, and got into another fight with the twins and their mother. During that dispute, Collins pulled a 4-inch pocketknife on the women, prompting Shayla Brown to grab Collins’ shirt, causing all four to tumble down steps. As they fell, Collins lashed out with his knife, injuring Shayla Brown in the arm and inflicting a fatal stab wound on Kayla Brown’s neck, according to the court’s ruling.

The appellate judges ruled that Sedgwick County District Judge John Kisner had incorrectly applied the Stand Your Ground law in dismissing charges against Collins and also gave too much weight to Collins’ testimony that he was afraid of suffering great bodily harm.

“In our view, the State met its burden (to justify taking the case to trial) because a reasonable person — given the district court’s assessment of the conflicting evidence — could have concluded Collins’ acts were not justified,” the court ruling said. “Collins’ claim of self-defense is, therefore, appropriately left for a jury to decide.”