Cited by

First, we “determine whether the language, on its face, is ambiguous.”

A. “The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2024)

A. “The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2024)

d 755, 761 (Minn. 2019) (stating that appellate courts defer to the jury to assess witness credibility).

“When interpreting a statute, [an appellate court’s] goal is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Robinson , -58, 761 -62 (Minn. 2019) (interpreting Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd.

The meaning of a word that appears ambiguous if viewed in isolation may become clear when the word is analyzed in light of the terms that surround 7 it.’ ” (quoting Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 229 (1993)).

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

16, 2018) (refuting argument that admitting a recorded statement absent testimony as to the accuracy of the statement was plain error where (1) the declarant was a reluctant witness trying to recant to benefit the appellant and (2) other evidence presented at trial supported the accuracy of the statement), aff’d, (Minn. Jan.

See State v. Robinson , (noting that when “the plain meaning of the statute controls and .

See State v. Robinson , (interpreting Domestic Abuse Act before determining whether sufficient evidence supported felony domestic assault conviction).

See, -62 (Minn. 2019) (concluding parties were in a significant romantic or sexual relationship, even though they were only together for about one month, based on the “consequences of the relationship to the parties”).

See State v. Robinson , , 756-58, 761-62 (Minn. 2019) (interpreting Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd.