Cited by

-05 (Minn. 2013) (resolving ambiguity by determining which interpretation of ambiguous language is “better”); see also In re Civ.

1e(b) (2022); (analyzing the 2012 version of section 609.66 and concluding that subdivision 1(e)(b) defined a sentencing enhancement, not a separate offense, applicable only when the person committed the offense of drive-by shooting defined in subdivision 1(e)(a)).

Partners III-Lofts, LLC, - 41 (Minn. 2020) (analyzing whether plaintiff presented valid statutory claims); (holding whether alleged conduct meets the statutory definition of a particular offense is reviewed de novo).

(declining to consider remaining plain-error steps after 2 The record reflects that when exhibit 105 was played during trial, there was a significant disruption by spectators in the courtroom that included emotional outbursts, threatening behavior and, later, a physical altercation in the hallwa

tivity” or “[t]he [defendant] has been offered treatment but has failed to take advantage of the opportunity or to show a commitment to rehabilitation.” Austin, d at 251 (quotations omitted); see also Thonesavanh, d at 436 14 (discerning the meaning of a statute based on the “better interpretation”); (embracing the more reasonable of the two interpretations of a statute); (adopting the “better interpretation” of a statute).

d 799, 803 (Minn. 2013).

To determine whether Grant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing, we must first review the legislation under which he claims entitlement to a hearing.1 (stating that appellate courts apply plain meaning of statute that is unambiguous).

When interpreting a statute, we “give words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.”

When interpreting a statute, we “give words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.”

- 05 (Minn. 2013) (resolving ambiguity by determining which interpretation of ambiguous language is “better”); see also In re Civ.

d 799, 803 (Minn. 2013).

d 799, 803 (Minn. 2013).

But if “a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, then the statute is ambiguous and we may consider the canons of statutory construction.”

See State v. Hayes , d 799, 807-08 (Minn. 2013) (concluding that no plain error existed when the district court acted within its discretion by admitting certain evidence).

to interpret and apply criminal statutes as written.” n.1 (Minn. 2013).

When Seelye waived her right to a jury trial on the issue of guilt, she waived her right to a jury determination on all of the elements of the 7 Seelye also relies on State v. Hayes , to support her interpretation of the DWI statutes.

(stating that whether certain conduct meets a statutory definition is reviewed de novo).