Cited by

-91 (Minn. 2016) (adopting a new interpretation of a firearm statute and vacating appellant’s conviction that had been based on the newly interpreted crime).

Stone, d at 622; (defining “firearm” with its ordinary dictionary definition); (same).

(“In the absence of a statutory definition, we look to dictionary definitions to determine the plain meaning of words.”); Sterry v. Minn. Dep’t of Corr., d 224, 233 (Minn. 2024) (“[Appellate courts] often look to dictionary definitions when determining the plain meaning of undefined words i

The American Heritage Dictionary 888 (5th ed. 2011) (noting that “incidental” is commonly defined as “[o]f a minor, casual, or subordinate nature”); (stating that when a statute does not define terms, a reviewing court may “look to the dictionary definitions of those words and apply them in the context of the statute” to discern their meaning).

(stating “the plain and ordinary meaning of the word ‘firearm’ includes only devices that require explosive force,” such that an “air-powered BB gun is not a firearm”).

“When determining the plain and ordinary meaning of undefined words or phrases in a statute, courts should look to the dictionary definitions of those words and apply them in the context of the statute.”

d 485, 488 (Minn. 2016).

But after Kingbird’s conviction had become final, we held in State v. Haywood that an “air-powered BB gun is not a firearm, and thus [the] possession of it did not violate section 609.165.”

We begin our analysis of the statute by looking to the meaning of the phrase “type of restitution.”

We will also “look to the dictionary definitions of [the] words and apply them in the context of the statute.” Stat e v. Haywood

Turning to Spotts’s first argument that “the statute does not define or provide any guidance for determining when a person ‘stays overnight’ at a particular place.” The statute does not define “overnight.” “In the absence of a statutory definition, we look to dictionary definitions to determine the plain meaning of words” and “apply them in the context of the statute.” 488 (Minn. 2016); see also Broadway Child Care Ctr., Inc. v. Minn. Dep’t of Hum.

that an air-compressed BB gun is not a “firearm” under this statute, Kingbird’s conviction was vacated.

The statute does not define “person.” “In the absence of a statutory definition, we look to dictionary definitions to determine the 6 plain meaning of words” and “apply them in the context of the statute.” 488 (Minn. 2016); see also State v. Serbus

(citing State v. Haywood

In doing so, we may “look to the dictionary definitions of those words and apply them in the context of the statute.”

see STRIB IV, –25 (Minn. 2016) (relying on dictionary definitions to determine “the most common usage” of statutory language governing a tax classification).

“The objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature’s intent.” (quotation omitted).

Prior to our deciding Yang’s appeal, in which the defendant, Haywood, appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm by an ineligible person.

See State v. Haywood , (“It is not for the [lower] courts to make, amend, or change the statutory law, but only to apply it.” (quotation omitted)).

The State countered that the distress flare launcher is a firearm because any “device that expels a projectile by the action or force of an explosion or combustion” meets the definition of a “firearm”

“The objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature’s intent.” (quotation omitted).

We interpret the “plain and ordinary meaning of undefined words” according to “the dictionary definitions” and “apply them in the context of the statute.” see also Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2018) (stating “words and phrases” in statutes are to be construed “according to their common and approved usage”).

3 In May 2017, appellant’s conviction for possession of a 9 (Minn. 2016) (holding that an air -powered BB gun is not a firearm under the plain meaning of Minn. Stat. § 609.165).

State v. Haywood , , 488 (Minn. 2016).

Following Hayes’s convictions, the supreme court decided, in State v. Haywood , that a BB gun is not a fire arm for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 609.1 65 (2014).