Cited by

formation in the record” pursuant to State v. Grunig, which provides that a respondent may “raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”

The state may defend the underlying decision on an alternative ground “when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”

Crawford v. 4 The state argues for the first time on appeal that N.H.’s on-scene statements to the officer are not testimonial because the statements were “made during an ongoing emergency.” for support.

Also, a respondent can defend the underlying decision on an alternative 9 ground “when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”

nstrated [Baldwin’s] overall consciousness of guilt.” “ A respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”

27 (Minn. 2003) (providing that a respondent can defend an underlying decision on alternative grounds “when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alt

In both Mejia -Bonilla and Dalton, this court relied on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s to affirm the admission of prior bad-acts evidence that had been admitted under Spreigl by relying instead on section 634.20 as a basis for admissibility.

“A respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when [1] there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, [2] there is legal support for the arguments, and [3] the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”

But in a criminal case, the respondent may “raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”

(providing that, under certain circumstances, “[a] respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision”).

We agree.2 “A respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”

e state relies on State v. Grunig, in which the supreme court held that “[a] respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.” (emphasis added).

to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would n ot expand the relief previously granted.”

(A respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision[.]”); d 423 , 437 (Minn. App. 2024) (applying the Grunig rule and concluding that the respondent did not forfeit an issue not raised below).

10 alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”

In State v. Grunig, the supreme court held: “A respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts 6 in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.” n.2 (Minn. 2013) (citing Grunig and determining that the state’s argument that the defendant consented to the search was properly bef

(“A respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief

and brother during the recorded jail calls were “non-testimonial” 36 Steeprock’s “pro se supplemental brief raised rule 804(b)(3) as an issue” and that, even if the state made new arguments, they are “allowed,”

Generally, “appellate courts will not decide issues that were not raised in the trial court.”

Xiong nevertheless argues that the issue is properly before us

An appellate court may affirm a district court’s order on alternat ive grounds when “there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.” see also Minn. R. Crim.

ke arguments about these statutes in district court, “[a] respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to 9 consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”

Although we generally do not decide issues that were not raised to the district court, the state may defend the district court’s ruling that the evidence was admissible on alternative grounds on appeal so long as there are sufficient facts in the record, legal support for the arguments, and “the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.” d 134, 137 (Minn. 2003).

n.3 (Minn. 2019) (stating “an appellate court may affirm” a district court’s decision when “‘there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted’” ().

(“The waiver rule is an administrative rule dictating that appellate courts will not decide issues that were not raised in the [district] court.”).

(holding that the court of appeals erred by failing to consider a new argument raised on appeal where the record was sufficiently developed for appellate review).

First, “[a] respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”

1 n.1 (Minn. App. 2015), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

Although the district court did not consider the state’s arguments and denied appellant’s motion on the merits, we may affirm a district court’s decision on alternative grounds not decided by the district court if there is factual and legal support for the arguments, “and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”

Although the district court did not consider whether Cibulka’s petition was timely, our court can affirm a district court’s decision on alternative grounds not decided by the district court if “there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.” n.4 (Minn. 2003); see also Minn. R. Civ.

State v. Grunig , d 134, 136 (Minn. 2003) (citing Minn. R. Crim.

An appellate court, however, may affirm a district court’s decision on alternative grounds if “there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”

e to appellate review, the supreme court has held that “[a] respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.” see also Minn. R. Crim.

try.4 Notwithstanding these flaws in the record , “[a] respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlyi ng decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the altern ative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the altern ative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”

While the state can raise alterna tive arguments on appeal in defense of an underlying decision when there are sufficient fact s in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, given the lack of factual development before the district court, the facts to support this argument are sorely lacking.

Moreover, “[a] respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”

cites Johnson v. State , and State v. Grunig , for the proposition that the interests of justice warrant the de novo review of the voluntariness of the confession.