Cited by

at 458 (quotation omitted); (stating that Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional).

Thus, a statute may be void for vagueness “if the description of the 12 forbidden conduct is vague” or “if its wording leaves doubt as to which persons fall within the scope of the law.”

Second, the 2003 amendments do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, which requires that “all persons similarly situated be treated alike under the law.”

r a targeted victim transferred to the murder of the wrong target); Cruz-Ramirez, d at 501–02, 507 (intent to murder one victim transferred to the murder of a bystander who was shot and killed); 229 (Minn. 1995) (intent to murder one victim transferred to the attempted murder of a bystander who was accidentally shot and wounded); 323 (Minn. 1990) (intent to murder a pregnant woman transferred to her fetus); –40 (Minn. 1986) (intent to murder one victim transferred to the murder of a bystander wh

See State v. Merrill , (requiring party challenging constitutionality of statute to prove constitu tional defect beyond a reasonable doubt); (noting that inadequately briefed issues are not properly before an appellate court), review denied (Minn. Aug.

State v. Merrill , , 321 (Minn. 1990).

bears the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.” (“The party challenging a statute must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates some provision of the Minnesota Constitution.”).

“[T]he challenger bears the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.”

To successfully challenge a statute’s constitutionality, “the challenger bears the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.”

(“Ordinarily, the doctrine of transferred intent applies when the intent being transferred is for the same type of harm.

Of course, issues of constitutionality are not to be taken lightly, and the challenger bears a “very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.”

“[T]o challenge successfully the constitutional validity of a statute, the challenger bears the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.”

(stating that “the challenger bears the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond 10 a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional”).

(stating that “the challenger bears the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional”).

In reviewing appellant’s constitutional challenge, we reiterate that a party challenging the constitutionality of a statute “bears the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.”

-23 (Minn.1990) (describing the equal protection and void-for-vagueness doctrines)

in support of this contention.

See 1986 Minn. Laws, ch. 388 §§ 1-17 at 346-50; -24 (Minn.1990).

(discussing transferred intent in context of death of person and death of fetus and concluding harm was sufficiently similar to invoke transferred intent).

Because statutes are presumed constitutional, the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute “bears the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional,”

The challenging party “bears the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.”

“[T]o challenge successfully the constitutional validity of a statute, the challenger bears the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.”