Cited by

Safety , (quotation omitted).5 Appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.” Roby v. State , (Mi nn.

See Roby v. State , (noting that a failure to raise an issue precludes its litigation on appeal).

See Roby v. State , (holding that a party cannot raise a new issue on appeal).

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

(refusing to consider the merits of an issue raised for the first time on appeal without an adequate record), review denied (Minn. Nov.

8; d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (explaining that an appellate court “generally will not decide issues that were not raised before the district court”).

(holding that a party cannot raise a new issue on appeal).

See Roby v. State , 3 But appellate courts can “deviate from this rule when the interests of justice require consideration of such issues and doing so would not unfairly surprise a party to the appeal.” Id.; (considering equal-protection claim “in the inte

1 Generally, this court will not decide an issue that was “not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”

See Roby v. State , (stating principle that an appellate court will not decide issues not raised in district court).

See Roby v. State , (deeming forfeited constitutional questions not raised in the district court unless consideration is required in the interests of justice and the other party will not be unfairly surprised).

An appellate court “generally will not decide issues that were not raised before the district court.”

d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”).

“An evidentiary hearing upon a petition for postconviction relief is not required unless the petitioner alleges such facts which, if proved by a fair preponder ance of the evidence, would entitle him or her to the requested relief.”

d 543, 553 (Minn. 2010) (providing that objections to complaint must be made at least three days before omnibus hearing or they are waived); (holding that issues not raised in district court, including “constitutional questions of criminal procedure,” are generally not considered for the first time on appeal).

(stating that a reviewing court “will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”); see also State v. Marsh, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ , 2019 WL 2571677, at *3 (Minn. App. June 24, 2019) (holding that when the parties agr

See Andersen v. State , d 417, 428 n.11 (Minn. 2018) (citing Roby v. State , ) 3 To the extent Corrigan argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.

(stating that review of a rul e 26.01, subdivision 4, proceeding is limited to the dispositive pretrial ruling); (stating that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court); State v. B utcher, (stating that issues not adequately briefed are waived), review denied (Minn. Aug.

(stating appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure”); State v. Carroll , d 623, 629 n.3 (Minn. App. 2002) (“A party may not obtain review by raising the same issue under a

15a (2018) (“‘Must’ is mandatory.”); (“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”); (refusing to consider constitutional issue because arguments were not raised in the district court).

See Roby v. State , , 357 (Minn. 1996) (stating that a reviewing court "will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.").

d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996).

“An evidentiary hearing upon a petition for postconviction relief is not required unless the petitioner alleges such facts which, if proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would entitle him or her to the requested relief.” Roby v. State

(“[L]itigants are bound [ on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.”); (holding that an appellate court generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).

d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996); review denied (Minn. Aug.

(“[An appellate court] generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court .

d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (noting that an appellate court “generall y will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”).

Roby v. State , , 357 (Minn. 1996) ; see also State v. Wickner , , 862-63 (Minn. App. 2004) (declining to address appellant's vindictive-prosecution argument because appellant did not raise the issue at trial), review denied (Minn. Mar.

was not raised to 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.”

But appellant’s (an appellate court “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”).

At trial, Barker chose not to testify in his own defense, and therefore this version of events was not presented to the district court for consideratio n. Because an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court, this court need not consider arguments pertaining to Barker’s newly presented version of events.

n.11 (Minn. 2018) () (holding that some of appellant’s claims would not be considered on appeal because they were not raised before the postconviction court).