Cited by

6 Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, (“[T]he party seeking to introduce the [canine’s] alert and related testimony must establish an adequate foundation.”).

See Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, (stating that appellants may refine arguments on appeal).

Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency

See Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, -23 (Minn. 2007) (concluding that appellant’s claim was properly before the supreme court because appellant did not raise a new argument on appeal, but refined an argument made to the district court, and it was possible to evaluate the argument on facts already present in the record).

Forfeiture “is a civil in rem action, generally independent of any criminal prosecution.” Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency

Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, (concluding that the appellant was “not raising a new argument on appeal” but was instead “refin[ing] the argument” he made below).

the great object is to ascertain and interpret so as to carry out the intention of the lawgiver; and as a primary rule, the language used is to be first considered, as being the best evidence of what that 1 We once noted that proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” was “the highest standard of proof.” Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, n. 9 (Minn. 2007).

Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency

See Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, , 523 (Minn. 2007) (concluding that an issue was properly before the court for review when appellant “refined the argument made to the district court” and it was possible “to evaluate [that] argument on facts already present in the record”).

Garland, d at 742; Doe, d at 166-67; Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, , 529 (Minn. 2007) .

support his argument that error-rate evidence was required, we distinguished drug dog-sniff evidence from scientific evidence and explained that “[w]hen a dog’s handler testifies regarding his dog’s alert to drug odor, he offers an expert opinion as to the meaning of a particular set of behaviors displayed by a ‘living, breathing, animate creature.’ ” Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, –29 (Minn. 2007).

8 U.S. Currency, (concluding that a claim was properly before the court on appeal because although the appellant had “refined the argument he made to the district court,” he had not raised a new argument on appeal).

See J.W., d at 445- 47 (concluding that parent’s evidence, “if believed,” would suppor t a finding that she wa s not palpably unfit and concluding that parent rebutted presumption despite introduction of contrary evidence by the county); see also Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency , (stating that, generally, “a distri ct court should not engage in a qualitative evaluation or weighing of the evidence when deciding whether a [party] has produced sufficient evidence to rebu t [a] statutory presum

See Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency , (concluding that an issue was properly before the court when a party “refined the argument he made to the district court,” as opposed to raising a new issue).

3(d) (2020) (restricting forfeiture of property “only if its owner was privy to the use or intended use described in subdivision 2, or the unlawful use or intended use of the property otherwise occurred with the owner ’s knowledge or consent”); see also Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency , -21 (Minn. 2007) (explaining innocent-owner defense).

This permits the [district] court to more fully develop the record for appellate review or to correct its own mistake and alleviate the need for appellate review.” Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency , (considering objections to issues that arose during trial) (quotation omitted).

cf. Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency , (permitting argument that was not new but “ refined 3 The district court also declared State Farm the prevailing party .

Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency

See Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency , (“While [appellant] has 9 refined the argument he made to the district court, we conclude that he is not raising a new argument on appeal.”).

Even assuming that Onyelobi is refining her argument, rather than raising new arguments on appeal, see Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency , , 523 (Minn. 2007) (distinguishing between a refined argument, which may be considered by an appellate court, and a new argument, which may not), Onyelobi's new arguments fail on the merits.

See State v. Davis , , 179 n.11 (Minn. 2007) (citing *523 Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency , , 529 (Minn. 2007) (explaining that the reliability of narcotics dogs is assessed on a case-by-case basis) ).

Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, (stating that a district court’s determinations regarding foundation for expert witness testimony will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion).

Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, (“[T]he prosecuting agency, in order to prevail, must meet its burden of persuasion by producing clear and convincing evidence that the defendant property is connected to drug trafficking.”).

In addressing the rebuttal of a statutory presumption in a forfeiture action, the supreme court stated, Generally, “a district court should not engage in a qualitative evaluation or weighing of the evidence when deciding whether a claimant has produced sufficient evidence to rebut [a] statutory presumption[.]” Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency

First, the Frye-Mack standard only applies to “evidence based on emerging scientific techniques.” Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, (quotation omitted).

Ctr., Inc., n.6 (Minn. 2016) (analyzing whether the issue presented is “different in kind” to determine whether it was forfeited (quoting Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, -23 (Minn. 2007))).

Midway acknowledges that it did not specifically raise this issue before the district court, but argues that this court may consider issues that are “a refined version of an argument raised below.” See Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, – 23 (Minn. 2007).

See Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, (stating, when addressing rebuttal of a statutory presumption regarding forfeiture of property, that “[generally,] a district court should not engage in a qualitative evaluation or weighing of the evidence when deciding whether a claimant has produced sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presum

See Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, -23 (Minn.2007).

See Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, -23 (Minn. 2007) (allowing refinement).

See Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, (“A presumption is merely a procedural device for controlling the burden of going forward with the evidence, and it has no additional function other than the limited one of dictating 5 the decision where there is an entire lack of competent evidence

See Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, -23 (Minn. 2007) (distinguishing the argument waived in Thiele, which was “never litigated below,” from an argument raised on appeal that was a refined version of an argument raised below); Thayer v. Am.

See Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, -22 (Minn. 2007) (“A presumption is merely a procedural device for controlling the burden of going forward with the evidence, and it has no additional function other than the limited one of dictating the decision where there is an entire lack of competent evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted)).

Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, see also Minn. Stat. § 609.531, subd.