Cited by

d 608, 614 (Minn. App. 2025) (); n.3 (Minn. 2015) (distinguishing between preambiguity “canons of interpretation” and postambiguity “canons of construction”).

Disputed statutory language “is not examined in isolation; rather, all provisions in [a] statute must be read and interpreted as a whole.” 920 (Minn. 2019).

(“When a statute is ambiguous, we may rely on the canons of statutory construction to resolve the ambiguity ….

“A sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim that turns on the meaning of the statute under which a defendant has been convicted presents a question of statutory interpretation that [appellate courts] review de novo.”

State v. Pakhnyuk , n.3 (Minn. 2015) (distinguishing preambiguity “canons of 9 interpretation” and postambiguity “canons of construction”).

.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“[A]n error in the district court can be forfeited on appeal by the failure to make a timely objection in the district court.”

d 914, 920 (Minn. 2019) (stating that when a statute is “subject to more than one reasonable interpretation,” it is ambiguous).

A statute is ambiguous when it is “subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” d 914, 920 (Minn. 2019) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The purpose of statutory interpretation is to “effectuate the intent of the legislature.” d 914, 920 (Minn. 2019).

“[A]ll provisions in [a] statute must be read and interpreted as whole.”

other indebtedness.” (“The statutory language in dispute is not examined in isolation; rather, all 9 provisions in the statute must be read and interpreted as whole.”).

When assessing the reasonableness of a statutory interpretation, “we analyze ‘the statute’s text, structure, and punctuation’ and use the canons of interpretation.” Hagen v. Steven Scott Mgmt., Inc., (); –83 (Minn. 2015) (discussing pre-ambiguity “canons of interpretation” and post-ambiguity “canons of construction”).

When assessing the reasonableness of a statutory interpretation, “we analyze ‘the statute’s text, structure, and punctuation’ and use the canons of interpretation.” Hagen v. Steven Scott Mgmt., Inc., (); –83 (Minn. 2015) (discussing pre-ambiguity “canons of interpretation” and post-ambiguity “canons of construction”).

“Due process requires that the State bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a charged offense in a criminal trial.”

“had done nothing to guard her privacy in the bedroom” and “had no curtains or other coverings on the ground level bedroom window in question.” “The whole thrust of the [interference-with-privacy] statute is to protect people from surreptitious intrusion into places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

“[T]he [s]tate bear[s] the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a charged offense in a criminal trial.”

State v. Pakhnyuk , n.3 (Minn. 2015) (distinguishing between preambiguity “canons of interpretation” and postambiguity “canons of construction”).

-24 (Minn. 2019) (considering a statute’s purpose only after determining 18 its plain language is ambiguous).

924 (Minn. 2019) (explaining that courts apply the plain meaning of an unambiguous statute and may rely on the occasion and necessity for the law only if the statute is ambiguous).

“The aim of statutory analysis is to ‘effectuate the intent of the legislature.’ ” d 914, 920 (Minn. 2019) ().

Appellate courts do not interpret disputed words and phrases in isolation; “rather, all provisions in the statute must be read and interpreted as a whole.”

The state bears the burden “of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a charged offense in a criminal trial.”

1; (describing the state’s burden in a criminal trial).

“A sufficiency-of-the evidence claim that turns on the meaning of the statute under which a defendant has been convicted presents a question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo.”

See Carlton, d at 602 (evaluating the legislative history of a statute to determine whether the two-year time limit was a jurisdictional bar); (“When a statute is ambiguous, we may rely on the canons of statutory construction to resolve the ambiguity.”).

We start by determining whether the statute is ambiguous, and we do so by analyzing “ ‘the statute’s text, structure, and punctuation’ and use the canons of interpretation.” Hagen v. Steven Scott Mgmt., Inc., (); n.3 (Minn. 2015) (distinguishing the pre-ambiguity “canons of interpretation” from the post-ambiguity “canons of construction”).

But the forfeiture doctrine is typically not applicable in challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, which “raise[] essentially the same argument on appeal that [was] presented to the jury at trial: that [the defendant] was not guilty of a crime.” -19 (Minn. 2019).

see Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2022).