Cited by

“The purpose of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature.”

State v. Vasko , see Minn. Stat. § 645.16(4) (2020).

We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo.”

We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo.”

See, (stating that when “the meaning of a criminal statute is intertwined with” whether the state proved that the defendant violated the statute, “it is often necessary to interpret a criminal statute when evaluating an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim”); -06 (Min

“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 statu te, 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 stat ute when evaluating an insufficiency -of-the- evidence claim.”

(deciding the appellant’s statutory-interpretation question before analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence).

“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.” State v. Vasko , (addressing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge and stating, “it is necessary to first determine what evidence is required” for a statutory criminal conviction, which “is an issue of statutory inter

As a threshold matter, we observe that it is this court’s responsibility to decide cases in accordance with the law, 6 (Minn. 2017), and that we “will not reverse a correct decision simply because i t is based on incorrect reasons, ”

d 551, 556 (Minn. 2017).

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

“Because the meaning of a criminal statute i s 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.”

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

State v. Vasko , , 556 (Minn. 2017).

(interpreting city ordinance).

(stating that it is often necessary to interpret a criminal statute when evaluating an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim).

is on the State to prove that an accused has committed an act bringing him within a criminal statute."); State v. Vasko , , 556 (Minn. 2017) ("[T]he 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....").

App. P. 103.04 and State v. Vasko , the State argues that the decision to do so was in the interest of justice.

(interpreting city ordinance).

2018) (quotation omitted); (“The same rules that apply to the interpretation of a statute apply to the interpretation of a n ordinance.”).

(“[I]t is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law, and that responsibility is not to be diluted by counsel’s .

See State v. Vasko , , 556 (Minn. 2017).

See State v. Vasko , , 556 (Minn. 2017) (stating that, when evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, "it is often necessary to interpret a criminal statute").

See State v. Vasko , (stating that, when evaluati ng the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, “it is often necessary to interpret a criminal statute”).

(“The district court, however, rejected [certain] evidence, and we defer to that credibility determination.”); see also Minn. R. Civ.

State v. Vasko , , 556 (Minn. 2017).

See State v. Vasko , (explaining that appellate courts defer to a district court’ s determinations of witness credibility).

See State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990) 3 Here, the meaning of the relevant statutes is “intertwined with the issue of whether the [s]tate proved beyond a reasonable doubt that [Waldron] violated the statute[s].”

d 551, 559 (Minn. 2017).

State v. Vasko , , 556 (Minn. 2017).