Cited by

First, and State v. Schachtel, 196 N.W.

-50 (Minn. App. 2018) (holding district court did not err by instructing the jury to determine whether Bowen “took a bottle of liquor” to convict him of simple robbery for taking “personal property” because whether the bottle was personal property was a question of law), aff’d, (analyzing only sufficiency of the evidence).

1(1), is ambiguous with respect to the phrase “brawling or fighting.” A statute is ambiguous if it is “subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” (quotation omitted).

To determine whether a word in a statute is ambiguous, we consider whether it can be “subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We “interpret statutory language to ‘ascertain and effectuate’ the Legislature’s intent.” State v. Bowen , (quoting Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018)).

The goal of statutory interpretation is to “effectuate the [l]egislature’s intent.” State v. Bowen , 17 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

This court “interpret[s] statutory language t o ascertain and effectuate the Legislature’s intent.” State v. Bowen , (quotation omitted).

We interpret statutes to “ ‘ascertain and effectuate’ the Legislature’s intent.” Mi nn.

d 763, 765 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

We interpret “statutory language to ‘ascertain and effectuate ’ the Legislature’s intent.” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2020)).

State v. Bowen , d 763, 765 (Minn. 2019).

We “interpret statutory language to ‘ascertain and effectuate ’ the Legislature’s intent.” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018)).

We “interpret statutory language to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature’s intent.” (internal quotation marks omitted); Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018).

5 “When we consider a claim of insufficien t evidence, our review is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

When considering a claim of insufficient evidence, appellate review “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permi t the jurors to reach the verdict they did.” (quotation omitted).