Cited by

“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”

(stating that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court”).

(stating that appellate courts generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).

(stating that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court”).

(stating that an appellate court generally will not decide issues that were not raised in the district court).

(denying relief related to hearsay argument raised for the first time on appeal); (“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court .

the issue is not properly before this court.” n.1 (Minn. App. 2018); see Roby v. State , (“[Appellate] court[s] generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.

Further, even if the statutory interpretation argument had been forfeited, we can still consider an argument raised for the first time on appeal “when the interests of justice require consideration of such issues and doing so would not unfairly surprise a party to the appeal.” see also Minn. R. Crim.

(reaffirming the principle that “[t]his court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure”).

(explaining that appellate courts generally do not consider issues that a party did not present to the district court).

(stating that appellate courts “consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it” (quotation omitted)); (holding that in reviewing a district court’s decision, appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.” 5 investigative stops by police.

(stating that appellate courts generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).

Generally, appellate courts “will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”

An appellate court “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”

Thiele, d at 582-83; (stating that appellate courts generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including issues of constitutional law).

(determining the appellant forfeited an objection to a warrantless search because the issue was not raised during district court proceedings); Minn. R. Crim.

(stating that, generally, appellate courts do not consider matters not argued to the district court).

substantial basis to conclude that the challenged warrant was supported by probable cause, we need not address the state’s alternative argument that we “should adopt the contemporaneous- warrant doctrine.” We also observe that this issue was not raised during district court proceedings, and we “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”

d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) .

Appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”

An appellate court “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”

Roby v. State , 1 McDowell also contends that the cracked windshield cannot “serve as a basis justifying the officers’ seizure” because the officers did not conduct the traffic stop at the earliest opportunity, and instead, the stop was based on the officers’ subjective intent to investigate the driver for a potential felo

f the subdivision 4(b) exceptions to the time-bar—especially as to Silva’s April 25, 2024 amended motion for vacated sentence— (“Because Azure did not raise the claim in his postconviction petition and the postconviction court made no findings on the issue, we have no postconviction ruling to review.”); (explaining that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court”); n.5 (Minn. App. 2022) (“an appellate court will not consider matters not arg

A party cannot “obtain review by raising the same issue litigated below but under a different theory.” Thiele v. Stich , (applying Thiele to a criminal case).

(holding that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court”).

We “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”

(stating that reviewing courts generally will not decide issues not raised in district court); (declining to consider a postconviction argument not raised in district court).

“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”

It is well settled that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.” d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996); (stating that appellate courts do not consider issues on appeal that were not p resented to, and considered by, the district court).

See Roby v. State , (“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court .

(“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”).

(“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court .

(holding that failure to raise issue in district court precludes consideration on appeal); -83 (Minn. 1988) (“An appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence

Andersen , d at 428 n.11 ( ).

And notably, considering the issue of malfeasance “would not unfairly surprise” Jacobs on appeal, Jacobs briefed the issue of malfeasance below and the district court fully considered the issue, explaining in its order why it believed the petition alleged malfeasance.