Cited by

Consequently, (stating that this court generally considers only those issues that were presented to the district court); see also Brooks v. State , -19 (Minn. App. 2017) (declining to consider arguments “based on mere assertion and not supported by legal authority or argument”).

On appeal, a party cannot “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” (applying Thiele in a criminal case).

(agreeing that a party’s “failure to raise the issue before the district court at trial precludes .

d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (holding that issues are waived on appeal if not raised to the district court).

id, as are all convictions and sentences under them.” Weiland did not make this argument to the district court, (stating that appellate courts generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court); Roby 14 v. State, (stating that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure”).

To support his argument, Sullivan cites Roby v. State, which provides that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”

d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996).

See, (stating that appellate courts generally address only those questions previously raised before the district court).

See, (holding that the failure to raise an issue before the district court precludes its litigation on appeal); (“The law is clear in Minnesota that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be challenged for the first time on appeal.”).

See id.; see also Roby v. 7 State, (recognizing that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court”).

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

See Roby v. State , (stating appellate courts do not decide issues that were not raised in district court).

(stating that appellate courts generally do not decide issues not raised before the district court).

Hinton challenges the canine sniff, arguing that law enforcement lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion because the CRI provided 16 information that Hinton was selling drugs on the streets “but had no information regarding Hinton’s residence.” We “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”

(stating that “[a] defendant’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection or a basis apparent from the context of the objection”); d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (stating that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court”).

(declaring that party’s “failure to raise the issue before the district court at trial precludes its litigation on appeal”); (stating that “[a] defendant’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for

.” see Brown, d at 618 (“The [postconviction] petition must allege more than argumentative assertions without factual support.” (quotation omitted)).

our review is further limited to the pretrial order that denied Ortega’s motion to suppress.”); (stating appellate courts will not decide issues first raised on appeal).

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

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that generally, appellate courts address only those questions 10 previously presented to and considered by the district court); d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (applying this principle to a criminal appeal).

at 648 (acknowledging that legal challenges to sentences typically must be made to the district court) ; (declaring that appellant’s “failure to raise the issue before the district court at trial precludes its litigation on appeal”).

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

As a threshold matter, we note that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”

d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) .

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

Appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.” see also State v. LaBarre , (stating that issues “raised for the first time on appeal .

ress sua sponte an argument regarding the application of the amelioration doctrine which was not raised by a party to the case, Robinette, d at 147 n. 6, we have the discretion to reach issues that would otherwise be forfeited when the “interests of justice require consideration of such issues” and our consideration “would not unfairly surprise a party to the appeal,” see also Minn. R. Crim.

Roby v. State , (stating that generally, an appellate court will address only the issues that the record shows were 6 disagree that these reasons support fair -and-just withdrawal.

(recognizing that appellate courts generally do not decide issues not raised before the district court); (recognizing that arguments that are inadequately briefed are forfeited).

“An appellate court generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court.” (), rev’d on other grounds