Cited by

When reviewing a claim that a judge was partial against a party, we presume the judge “discharged his or her judicial duties properly.” ().

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., n.1 (Minn. 1998) (deeming claims waived because appellant “allude[d] to” issues but “fail[ed] to address them in the argument portion of his brief”).

5, 1997); n.1 (Minn. 1998) (applying rule that issues not briefed on appeal are waived in a case where an appellant “allude[d] to” issues but “fail[ed] to address them in the argument portion of his brief”).

McKenzie v. State , d 744, 746 n.1 (Minn. 1998) (stating that arguments inadequately briefed are waived where the appellant alludes to issues but “fails to address them in the argument portion of his brief”); -65 (Minn. 1944) (“[O]n appeal error is never presumed.

For a judge to be impartial, she must possess “no actual bias against the defendant or interest in the outcome of his particular case.” (quoting McKenzie v. State , ).

Impartiality req uires absence of “ ‘actual bias against the defendant or interest in the outcome of his particular 9 case.’ ” State v. Munt , (quoting McKenzie v. State , ).

n.1 (Minn. 1998) (an issue that is not argued in a brief is deemed waived on appeal).

n.1 (Minn. 1998) (declining to consider issues raised in a brief when the appellant alluded to them but failed to “address them in the argument portion of his brief”).

See McKenzie v. State , n.1 (Minn. 1998) (applying the rule that arguments not briefed are waived in an appeal in which the appellant “allude[d] to” an issue but “fail[ed] to address [it] in the argument portion of his brief”).

See McKenzie v. State , n.1 (Minn. 1998) (arguments not briefed are waived in an appeal in which the appellant “alludes to” an issue but “fails to address them in the argument portion of [her] brief”).

“When reviewing a claim that a judge was partial against the defendant, we presume the judge ‘discharged his or her judicial duties properly.’” ().

State v. Munt , , 580 (Minn. 2013) (quoting McKenzie v. State , , 747 (Minn. 1998) ).

See McKenzie v. State , n.1 (Minn. 1998) (applying the rule that arguments not briefed are forfeited in an appeal in which the appellant “allude[d] to” an issue but “fail[ed] to address them in the argument portion of his brief”).

See McKenzie v. State , , 746 n.1 (Minn. 1998) (declining to address issues that the appellant alluded to but failed to address in the argument portion of his brief).

See McKenzie v. State , n.1 (Minn .

d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (declining to hear an issue not raised in district court); n.1 (Minn. 1998) (stating that issues not argued in briefs are waived).

d 744, 746 n.1 (Minn. 1998) (“[I]ssues not argued in briefs are deemed waived on appeal.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)).

n.1 (Minn. 1998) (indicating that when an appellant “alludes to” an issue but “fails to address [it] in the argument portion of his brief” we need not address it).

Moreover, while Griffin had the right to have his case heard before a judge who had “no actual bias against [him] or interest in the outcome of his particular case,” (quotation omitted), 8 Griffin cannot claim bias because the judge who Karkoska consulted with had no part in the subsequent hearing on Griffin’s motion to suppress or in his trial.

n.1 (Minn. 1998) (noting that issues not briefed on appeal are waived).

n.1 (Minn. 1998); State, Dep’t of Labor & Indus.

n.1 (Minn. 1998) (applying the rule that arguments not briefed are not addressed in a case where the appellant “allude[d] to” an issue but “fail[ed] to address [the issue] in the argument portion of his brief”).

5, 1997); n.1 (Minn. 1998) (applying the rule that arguments not briefed are waived when appellant alluded to issues but “fail[ed] to address them in the argument portion of his brief”).

n.1 (Minn. 1998) (applying the rule that arguments not briefed are forfeited in a case where appellant “allude[d] to” an issue but “fail[ed] to address [it] in the argument portion of his brief”).

(“When reviewing a claim that a judge was partial against the defendant, we presume the judge ‘discharged his or her judicial duties properly.’”) ().

“Because the State did not raise this matter in its brief, it was not proper subject matter for appellant’s reply brief and, 7 therefore, is waived and stricken.” n.1 (Minn. 1998) (“Issues not argued in briefs are deemed waived on appeal.” (quotation omitted)).