Cited by

(declining to rule on the validity of a warrantless seizure because it was not raised at the district court, and there was “insufficient information in the trial court record” on the issue); (“Because appellant did not raise these issues at th

Appellate courts generally decline to decide issues “which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal.” d 455, 457 (Minn. 1989).

Generally, appellate courts “will not decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal.” (“It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” (quotation omitted)).

Generally, an appellate court will not review issues that are raised for the first time on appeal but may decide to hear such issues at its own discretion “when the interests of justice require their consideration and addressing them would not work an unfair surprise on a party.”

considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it” (quotation omitted)); (stating that an appellate court does not “decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal even if the issues involve constitutional questions regarding criminal procedure” ().

(explaining that, in general, “we will not decide issues which are not first addressed by the [district] court”).

See, -59 (Minn. 1989) (declining to consider a Fourth Amendment challenge, in part because the appellant failed to preserve the error below).

(providing that appellate courts typically only decide issues that are “first addressed by the [district] court”).

P. 11.02(a), (b), (g); 11 (Minn. 1989); State ex rel.

P. 11.02(a), (b), (g); State ex rel.

Generally, we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal unless “the interests of justice require their consideration and addressing them would not work an unfair surprise on a party.”

at 24; (stating that an appellate court usually “will not decide issues which are not first addressed by the [district] court”).

See, (stating that appellate courts “may .

(declining to address a legal argument not raised below and noting that “[u]sually, we will not decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal”).

in which the supreme court declined to consider an argument for suppression based on the Minnesota Constitution because th at theory had not been presented to the district court.

(noting that reviewing courts “will not decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal”).

See Tischendorf v. Tischendorf , State v. Sorenson

(stating that an appellate court usually “will not decide issues which are not first addressed by the [district] court”).

Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 176- 6 77, 104 S. Ct. 1735, 1740 (1984)

We may consider arguments not addressed by the district court “when the interests of justice require their consideration and addressing them would not work an unfair surprise on a party.” State v. Sorenson

See State v. Sorenson , , 457 (Minn. 1989).

“Usually, we will not decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial 4 court and are raised for the first time on appeal even if the issues involve constitutional questions regarding criminal procedure.”

7 to address issues that have not been raised at the lower courts.”

See State v. Sorenson , (declining to consider an issue th at was not adequately briefed or litigated).

This court has declined to “decide issues which are not first addressed by the [district] court and are raised for the first time on appeal even if the issues involve constitutional questions regarding criminal procedure.” State v. Sorenson

(declining to consider search- and-seizure issue under Minn. Const. art. I, § 10, and limiting analysis to U.S. Const. amend.

However, an appellate court has discretion to consider issues for the first time on appeal “when the interests of justice require their consideration and addressing 3 them would not work an unfair surprise on a party.”

at 1139-40 ; Krech, d at 636-37 .