Cited by

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

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

If the statutory language is unambiguous, “[t]he plain language of the statute controls.” (quotation omitted).

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

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

5 B. “The aim of statutory analysis is to ‘effectuate the intent of the legislature.’ ” ().

“When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity,” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2022), “[t]he plain language of the statute controls,” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

d 914, 918-19 (Minn. 2019).

(explaining that statutory language must not be read in isolation but rather “all provisions in the statute must be read and interpreted as whole”).

“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.”

d 914, 920 (Minn. 2019) (“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.”).

We examine the statute as a whole, considering the entire statute, not merely the specific phrase at issue, and each section of the statute should be reviewed in light of the surrounding sections to avoid conflicting interpretations

“The aim of statutory analysis is to effectuate 5 the intent of the legislature.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2022).

If the statute is unambiguous, we give effect to the plain language of the statute; if the statute is ambiguous, then we “may apply canons of construction to resolve the ambiguity.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The state bears the burden to prove every element of a charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and venue is an element of every criminal offense

When interpreting statutes, “all provisions in the statute must be read and interpreted as [a] whole.”

18 “The aim of statutory analysis is to effectuate the intent of the legislature.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2022).

8 “To determine the plain meaning of a statute, the words and phrases in the statute are construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Pakhnyuk , - 19 (Minn. 2019) (declining to apply forfeiture doctrine to a sufficiency- of-the-evidence challenge).

See State v. P akhnyuk, (“The plain language of the statute controls when the meaning of the statute is unambiguous.”).

8 “The aim of statutory analysis is to effectuate the intent of the legislature.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2022).

at 503 ( –20 (Minn. 2019)) .

“When interpreting a statute, the first question is whether the language of a statute is ambiguous.” State v. 4 Pakhnyuk

“To determine the plain meaning of a statute, the words and phrases in the statute are construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.” (quotation omitted).

d 914, 920 (Minn. 2019); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.17(2) (2020) (noting that the Legislature is presumed to intend that “the entire statute .