Cited by

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.”

7 “In determining whether the language of a statute is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, we consider the canons of interpretation listed in Minn. Stat. § 645.08.” Degroot, d at 360 (quotation omitted); d 679, 682 (Minn. 2015).

6 the supreme court held that the restitution statute, Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd.

(determining whether statutory language is ambiguous).

(recognizing courts construe a statute as a whole to determine if it is ambiguous and interpret its language to give effect to all of its provisions).

A statute is ambiguous if “its language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” A.M.F., d at 122.

If we can determine the legislature’s intent from the statute’s plain language, then “th e letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.”

1(a), as establishing an exclusive list of factors the district court must consider when determining the amount of a restitution award, one of which is the factor at issue here, “the amount of economic loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense.” Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd.

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

State v. Riggs , Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2020).

restitution, and that the record must include sufficient evidence about the defendant’s income, resources, and obligations to allow a district court to consider the defendant’s ability to pay 1 We have referred to “the income, resources, and obligations of the defendant” as the defendant’s “ability to pay.” See

Rather, we must “construe a statute as a whole and interpret its language to give effect to all of its provisions.” (“[W]e do not examine diff erent provisions [of a statute] in isolation.”).

State v. Riggs , 2 (Minn. 2015).

State v. Pakhnyuk , see State v. Riggs , d 679, 682 n.3 (Minn. 2015) (distinguishin g between pre-ambiguity “canons of interpretation” and post-ambiguity “canons of construction”).

(holding that we analyze a statute as a whole to de termine ambiguity).

Minn. Stat. § 645.16; n.3 (Minn. 2015) (noting that the canons of construction are considered after a statute is determined to be ambiguous).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has interpreted this particular phrase and endorsed its meaning as, “[t]o happen as a consequence, ” and also held that the “noun ‘result’ means ‘[s]omething that follows naturally from a particular action, operation, or course; a consequence or outcome.’” -86 (Minn. 2015) (quoting The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1497 (5th ed. 2011)).

Our formulation of the object accounts for this distinction, giving meaning to the Legislature’s inclusion of the phrase “in a public place.” See State v. Riggs , (“ [W]e construe a statute as a whole and interpret its language to give effect to all of its provisions.”).

(applying the de novo standard of review to a district court’s reading of Minn. Stat .

12 “where a sentence contains several antecedents and several consequents, courts should read them distributively and apply the words to the subjects to which, by context, they seem most properly to relate.” Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134, 1141 (2018) (quotation omitted).

d 679, 682 (Minn. 2015).

5 “construe a statute as a whole and interpret its language to give effect to all of its provisions.” State v. Riggs

9 In determining whether the language of a statute is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation , “we consider the canons of interpretation listed in Minn. Stat. § 645.08.”

We review de novo questions concerning statutory interpretation, see, and concerning the authority of the district court to order restitution, see, e.g., Anderson, d at 913.

The goal of statutory interpretation is to “effectuate the intent of the legislature.” d 679, 682 (Minn. 2015) (citations omitted).

And “[o]ur objective in statutory interpretation is to effectuate the intent of the legislature.” 5 (citing State v. Jones , ) (internal quotation marks omitted).

1(a); (holding that a district court errs by considering factors outside the tw o statutory criteria for awarding restitution).

The supreme court recognizes that the first criteri a for restitution requires “the district court to consider the economic loss sustained by the victim as a consequence of the defendant’s violation of the law.”

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

See State v. Riggs , , 682 (Minn. 2015).

Eight years later, we reaffirmed the direct-result standard in State v. Riggs

See State v. Riggs , , 682 (Minn. 2015).