Cited by

–56 (Minn. 2017) (“Generally, we consider an argument not raised in the parties’ briefs to be forfeited.”).

(“Because the meaning of a criminal statute is intertwined with the issue of whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated the statute, it is often necessary to interpret a criminal statute when evaluating an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim.”).

n.6 (Minn. 2017) (declining to reach a constitutional issue raised for the first time on appeal); (stating that inadequately briefed issues are not properly before an appellate court), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

d 551, 555–56 (Minn. 2017).

d 799, 803 (Minn. 2013).

focus on the district court’s second basis for excluding R.J.’s testimony, we must “decide cases in accordance with law” even when parties do not raise a particular issue, so long as that issue is not “novel or questionable.” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (addressing an issue that neither party raised in its briefing or at oral argument); –56 (Minn. 2017) (affirming the court of appeals’ interpretation of a statute despite neither party raising the issue of ambiguity before the court of appeals); –47 (Minn.

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we will “uphold the district court’s finding[s] if, based on the evidence contained in the record, the [district] court could reasonably have found [the] defendant guilty of the crime charged.” (quotation omitted).

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we will “uphold the district court’s finding[s] if, based on the evidence contained in the record, the [district] court could reasonably have found [the] defendant guilty of the crime charged.” (quotation omitted).

“Because the meaning of a criminal statute is intertwined with the issue of whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated the statute, it is often necessary to interpret a criminal statute when evaluating an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim.”

(declining, in a TPR appeal, to address a constitutional argument made for the first time on appeal); n.6 (Minn. 2017) (citing C.L.L.).

n.2 (Minn. 2023); n.7 (Minn. 1990).

d 551, 556 (Minn. 2017).

Appellate courts “may conclude that [a law] is ambiguous even though neither party argues that it is.”

5 it is often necessary to interpret a criminal statute when evaluating an insufficiency -of-the- evidence claim.”

6 “Because the meaning of a criminal statute is intertwined with the issue of whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated the statute, it is often necessary to interpret a criminal statute when evaluating an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim.”

See State v. Vasko , d 551, 556 (Minn. 2017); see also Pakhnyuk, d at 920.

See, (“We will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently.” ( ) ).

But the supreme court rejected a similar argument in a

at 919; (holding that the court of appeals did not err by interpreting a statute—even though the parties did not raise statutory interpretation arguments—before considering the sufficiency of the State’s evidence because appellate courts must decide cases in accordance with law).

n.6 (Minn. 2017) (citing to C.L.L.

failure to specify issues or to cite relevant authorities.’ ” (quoting Moorhead Econ.

“Because the meaning of a criminal statute is intertwined with the issue of whether the [s]tate proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated the statute, it is often necessary to interpret a criminal statute when evaluating an insufficiency-of-the- evidence claim.”

“Because the meaning of a criminal statute is intertwined with the issue of whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated the statute, it is often necessary to interpret a criminal statute 13 when evaluating an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim.”

n.6 (Minn. 2017) (applying this rule to constitutional questions).

(noting that appellate courts may need to interpret a criminal statute when evaluating an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim if those issues are intertwined).

“The same rules that apply to the interpretation of a statute apply to the interpretation of an ordinance.”

n.6 (Minn. 2017) (citing In re Welfare of C.L.L., 4 ).

See State v. Vasko , (deciding a statutory-interpretation question in order to analyze the sufficiency of the evidence).