Cited by

(concluding that “the plain language of section 611A.045, subdivision 1, provides an exclusive list of factors for determining the amount of restitution to award”).

State v. Pakhnyuk , n.3 (Minn. 2015) (distinguishing preambiguity “canons of 9 interpretation” and postambiguity “canons of construction”).

We “read a particular provision in context with other provisions of the same statute in order to determine the meaning of the particular provision.”

The aim of statutory analysis is to “effectuate the intent of the legislature.” d 679, 682 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

Only if the language is ambiguous will we 6 consider canons of construction—such as “the mischief to be remedied,” “the object to be attained,” and “the consequences of a particular interpretation.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16; n.3, 683 n.4 (Minn. 2015).

Our first step in statutory interpretation is to determine “whether the statute’s language is ambiguous.” 11 (Minn. 2015).

(directing courts to “construe a statute as a whole and interpret its language to give effect to all of its provisions”).

“A statute is ambiguous when its language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”

To determine the statute’s plain meaning, we construe the words and phrases of the statute “according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1)).

Co., (“We construe words and phrases ‘according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.’”) ().

“Our objective in statutory interpretation is to effectuate the intent of the legislature.” (quotation omitted).

When assessing the reasonableness of a statutory interpretation, “we analyze ‘the statute’s text, structure, and punctuation’ and use the canons of interpretation.” Hagen v. Steven Scott Mgmt., Inc., (); –83 (Minn. 2015) (discussing pre-ambiguity “canons of interpretation” and post-ambiguity “canons of construction”).

When assessing the reasonableness of a statutory interpretation, “we analyze ‘the statute’s text, structure, and punctuation’ and use the canons of interpretation.” Hagen v. Steven Scott Mgmt., Inc., (); –83 (Minn. 2015) (discussing pre-ambiguity “canons of interpretation” and post-ambiguity “canons of construction”).

685 (Minn. 2015) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd 1(a).

Doing so not only adheres to the text of the statute, but also comports with “the fundamental rule of statutory construction that a statute is to be read and construed as a whole so as to harmonize and give effect to all its parts.” (citation omitted).

An “offense” refers to “[a] violation of the law; a crime, often a minor one.” (alteration in original) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1250 (10th ed. 2014)).

State v. Pakhnyuk , n.3 (Minn. 2015) (distinguishing between preambiguity “canons of interpretation” and postambiguity “canons of construction”).

We read a statute as a whole “to harmonize and give effect to all its parts” because “various provisions of the same statute must be interpreted in the light of each other.” (quotation omitted).

The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine 4 “whether the statute’s language is ambiguous.”

“The aim of statutory analysis is to ‘effectuate the intent of the legislature.’ ” d 914, 920 (Minn. 2019) ().

Our first step in statutory interpretation is to determine “whether the statute’s language is ambiguous.”

“[I]f the Legislature’s intent is clear from the statute’s plain and unambiguous language, then we interpret the statute according to its plain meaning without resorting to the canons of statutory construction.” (quotation omitted).

1(a)(1)–(2); (finding that Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd.

We have previously held that these factors are “exclusive,” meaning that it would be error for a court to “consider[] factors other than those set forth in the statute.”

We start by determining whether the statute is ambiguous, and we do so by analyzing “ ‘the statute’s text, structure, and punctuation’ and use the canons of interpretation.” Hagen v. Steven Scott Mgmt., Inc., (); n.3 (Minn. 2015) (distinguishing the pre-ambiguity “canons of interpretation” from the post-ambiguity “canons of construction”).

But “we construe a statute as a whole and interpret its language to give effect to all of its provisions.”

The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine “whether the statute’s language is ambiguous.” State v. 9 Riggs

Co., (“We construe words and phrases ‘according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.’”) (d 679, 682 (Minn. 2015))).

“A statute is ambiguous when its language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”

5 B. “The aim of statutory analysis is to ‘effectuate the intent of the legislature.’ ” ().

We must “‘construe a statute as a whole and interpret its language to give effect to all of its provisions.’” ().

Because this question involves statutory interpretation, it “presents a question of law, which we review de novo.”

The primary focus of statutory interpretation is to “effectuate the intent of the legislature.” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014)).

In doing so, we “‘construe a statute as a whole and interpret its language to give effect to all of its provisions.’” ().

“Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, which we review de novo.”

But “[i]f the statutory language ‘is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation,’ it is ambiguous and we look to other interpretative tools to assist our inquiry into legislative intent.” Rodriguez, d at 634 ().

The primary focus of statutory interpretation is “to effectuate the intent of the legislature.” see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2022).

“A statute is ambiguous when its language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”

Minn. Stat. § 645.16; d 679, 682 (Minn. 2015).

The appellate courts’ “objective in statutory interpretation is to effectuate the intent of the legislature.” (quotation omitted).

In State v. Riggs, the Minnesota Supreme Court interpreted the phrase “as a result of the offense” to “require[] the district court to consider the economic loss sustained by the victim as a consequence of the defendant’s violation of the law.” 5-86 7 (Minn. 2015).

“A statute is ambiguous when its language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”