Cited by

A forfeiture is “a failure to make a timely assertion of a right.” n.3 (Minn. 2015).

P. 31.02 (permitting appellate review of a plain error affecting a defendant’s substantial rights even if the error was not brought to the trial court’s attention); State v. Beaulieu , (providing that the limited power of appellate courts to review unobjected-to error “is known as the plain-error doctrine ” (quotation omitted)).

See State v. Beaulieu , & n.3 (Minn. 2015) (explaining that, “[a] constitutional right, or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make tim ely assertion of the 1 Because neither party argued to the district court, or to this court

P. 31.02; (“A constitutional right, or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.” (alteration Omitted) (quotation omitted)).

(quoting State v. Beaulieu , ).

(noting that i ssues not briefed on appeal ar e forfeited).

n.3 (Minn. 2015) (noting forfeiture “is a failure to make a timely assertion of a right”).

3 “[F]orfeiture is the failure to make the timel y assertion of a right, [while] waiver is the intentional relinquishment or ab andonment of a known right.” State v. Beaulieu , n.3 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

n.3 (Minn. 2015) (noting that “waiver is the intentional 7 relinquishment .

“Whether a defendant has been denied due process of law is a question of law that [this court] review[s] de novo.”

State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., -79 (Minn. 2015).

(“Where a defendant asserts error, but fails to address the error in his appellate brief, the issue is deemed waived.”); -79 (Minn. 2015).

d 275, 279 (Minn. 2015) (clarifying that forfeiture doctrine applies when defendant failed 3 We do not address Olson’s alternative argument that the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to prove that Olson had the purpose to terrorize the trooper, or acted in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror, or his

5, 1997); n.3 (Minn. 2015) (explaining the difference between “waiver” and “forfeiture”).

n.3 (Minn. 2015) (“[W]aiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1777 (1993))).

9 Although the parties did not frame their arguments based on the supreme court’s we observe that so framing the appeal here would not change the result.

cause the plain language of the identity-theft statute requires that all victims be paid a minimum of $1,000 in restitution, the victims need not submit 1 The state contends that appellant forfeited this argument because he “never argued that he should not have to pay restitution” to 20 of the identity theft victims, nor did he provide “any basis for such an argument.” n.3 (Minn. 2015).

n.3 (Minn. 2015) (noting that “waiver is the intentional relinquishment .

In the past Minnesota appellate courts often used the term “waiver” to refer to what would now be called a “forfeiture.” See, n.3 (Minn. 2015) (acknowledging prior use of “waive” to refer to “forfeiture”), cert.