author: SACKETT, C.J.

text:
    STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwight Tyrone McCALL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-0763.
    Court of Appeals of Iowa.
    May 29, 2008.

      Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
    Dwight Tyrone McCall, pro se.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Amy K. Devine, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
    Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and HUITINK and MAHAN, JJ.
   SACKETT, C.J.

Defendant, Dwight Tyrone McCall, was convicted following a jury trial of criminal mischief in the first degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 716.1 (2005) and 716.3, and burglary in the third degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 713.1 and 713.6A. On appeal he contends the trial court erred by revising two jury instructions in response to a question submitted by the jury during deliberations. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS.

In August of 2006, Dwight McCall and his wife Dalila were in the process of obtaining a divorce. A protective order was in place and Dalila was living in the home with their children. Dalila testified while she was at work on the evening of August 8, 2006, McCall called her and asked if he could stay in their home to which she replied no. When Dalila arrived home after work, she noticed the back door was open, most of the furniture in the home was destroyed, and water was leaking from the ceiling.

Dalila called the police and an officer arrived to investigate. The officer testified the refrigerator door was ripped off and furniture was tipped over with the legs broken off. Upstairs, a water bed had been slashed open and the smell of bleach permeated the area. The ceiling downstairs collapsed from the weight of the water spilling from the water bed. There was no damage to the children’s rooms. Dalila received a phone call while the officer was there and she confirmed to the officer McCall was the caller. McCall apparently made incriminating statements during the call although at trial, McCall presented witnesses who testified that he was at a different residence on August 7 and 8 of 2006.

McCall was charged with criminal mischief in the first degree and burglary in the second degree and a jury trial was held on March 26 and 27, 2007. The court provided proposed instructions and a few changes were made at the attorneys’ requests. Instructions 15 and 16 set forth the elements of burglary in the second degree and burglary in the third degree. Both instructions required the State to prove “the Defendant broke into the residence” and “did not have permission or authority to break into the residence.” Instruction 17 provided the elements of the lesser included offense of trespass and required the State to prove “the defendant entered the residence” without permission. Another instruction provided a definition of “to enter” but no definition of “to break” was provided. The court confirmed there were no objections to the final draft of instructions. During deliberations the jury submitted a question to the court asking, “If [McCall] received a key from other siblings and with restraining order used key is this breaking and entering or would it be just trespassing?”

The trial judge conducted a hearing to determine how to respond to the question, allowing each attorney to provide an opinion. The State took the position that instructions 15 and 16 misguided the jury by not properly defining burglary. It argued burglary does not require a breaking and a proper instruction should state the defendant “broke into or entered the residence.” McCall’s attorney objected to any revision of the instructions and advised the jury should be told to reread the instructions. He claimed the State waived any right to object to the drafted instructions by failing to object to the instructions prior to deliberations. He stated the final draft instructions were accurate, though incomplete, and any revision would allow the State to present additional theories after the case was submitted to the jury. The judge determined the jury should be provided “a complete description of burglary” and revised the burglary instructions to provide the State had to prove “defendant entered or broke into the residence” without “permission or authority to enter the residence.” The jury returned a verdict finding McCall guilty of burglary in the third degree and criminal mischief in the first degree. McCall appeals these convictions contending the court abused its discretion by revising instructions 15 and 16 in response to the jury’s question.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

Challenges to jury instructions are generally reviewed for correction of errors at law. See Iowa R.App. P. 6.4; State v. Lawler, 571 N.W.2d 486, 489 (Iowa 1997). “We review the trial court’s instructions ‘to determine whether they correctly state the law and are supported by substantial evidence.’ ” State v. Walker, 600 N.W.2d 606, 608 (Iowa 1999) (quoting State v. Thompson, 570 N.W.2d 765, 767 (Iowa 1997)). Yet, “ ‘the decision to give a supplemental instruction, or to refrain from doing so, rests within the sound discretion of the trial justice.’ ” State v. Watkins, 463 N.W.2d 15, 18 (Iowa 1990) (quoting State v.. Pignolet, 465 A.2d 176, 184 (R.I.1983)). “‘A discretionary ruling is presumptively correct, and on appeal will be overturned only where an abuse of discretion has been demonstrated. An abuse is found only where the discretion is exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly unreasonable.’ ” Id. (quoting Sheer Constr., Inc. v. W. Hodgman & Sons, Inc., 326 N.W.2d 328, 334 (Iowa 1982)). We therefore will review the trial court’s decision to respond to the jury question for abuse of discretion and review the content of the revised instruction for correction of errors at law.

III. ANALYSIS.

McCall first argues the State waived any right to challenge the instructions after submission to the jury. All objections to jury instructions are to be made before closing arguments, “[b]ut if the court thereafter revises or adds to the instructions, similar specific objection to the revision or addition may be made in the motion for a new trial.” Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.924. The State was permitted to raise its concerns regarding the instruction when the court solicited the attorneys’ opinions on how to respond to the jury’s question. Though there was no motion for a new trial, the court initiated the discussion about the instructions and the State properly responded to the court in providing its opinion on the burglary instructions. McCall also argues the instructions originally given to the jury became the “law of the case.” Additional issues are raised in McCall’s pro se brief. These issues were not presented to the trial court and we cannot consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Webb, 516 N.W.2d 824, 828 (Iowa 1994).

McCall also contends the court abused its discretion because the revised instruction permitted the State to expand its theory of the case to include an entering alternative of committing burglary. “After the jury has retired for deliberation, ... if it desires to be informed on any point of law arising in the cause, ... the information required may be given, in the discretion of the trial court.” Iowa R.Crim. P. 2.19(5)(g). “[T]he court may, at the request of the jury, give further instructions, since the interest of justice requires that the jury have a full understanding of the case.” State v. Martens, 569 N.W.2d 482, 485 (Iowa 1997). “A number of courts have held that if the jury expresses confusion or lack of understanding of a significant element of applicable law, it is the court’s duty to give an additional instruction.” Id. Refusing to provide additional instructions may result in reversible error. Id.

“The trial court has the duty to instruct the jury as to the law on all material issues supported by the evidence.” Iowa R.Crim. P. 2.19(5)(f); Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.924. “Jury instructions are designed to explain the applicable law to the jurors so the law may be applied to the facts proven at trial.” State v. Bennett, 503 N.W.2d 42, 45 (Iowa Ct.App.1993). Beyond the duty of instructing the jury, the trial court also has the duty to ensure the jury understands both the issues and the law it must apply. Id. Additional instructions must also be fair to both the defendant and the State and cannot prejudice the defendant. See Watkins, 463 N.W.2d at 18.

Generally, the decision to give a supplemental instruction, or to refrain from doing so, rests within the sound discretion of the trial justice, and he need not limit himself to answering questions from the jury. As long as the supplemental charge is “scrupulously fair to the defendant and to the state” and does “not infringe upon the fact-finding province of the jury by coercion or improper suggestion,” the giving of a supplemental charge is not improper.

Id. (quoting Pignolet, 465 A.2d at 184).

In State v. Query, 594 N.W.2d 438 (Iowa Ct.App.1999), during a jury’s deliberation in a sexual abuse trial, the jury requested a more detailed definition of “genitalia area.” Query, 594 N.W.2d at 442. The court provided a dictionary definition that had been approved of in prior case law. Id. at 445. We found no abuse of discretion in the response to the jury because it was a correct statement of the law. Id. By contrast, in State v. Watkins, 463 N.W.2d 15 (Iowa 1990), our supreme court found a defendant was prejudiced by a trial court’s revision of instructions during deliberations that added an alternative means of committing robbery because the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to address this theory in closing arguments. Watkins, 463 N.W.2d at 18.

In Watkins, the original jury instructions allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty of robbery if the defendant intended to commit a theft, was armed with a dangerous weapon, and in carrying out the theft “the defendant threatened [the victim] with, or purposely put [the victim] in fear of immediate serious injury.” Id. at 17. After the jury had deliberated for over two hours, the judge gave it revised instructions on robbery. Id. at 16. The robbery instruction was changed to allow the jury to find the defendant guilty if, in addition to having the intent to commit a theft and being armed with a dangerous weapon, the defendant either “a. Committed an assault upon [the victim]; or b. Threatened [the victim] with, or purposely put [the victim] in fear of immediate serious injury.” Id. at 17. The means added in the revision has been referred to as the “assault alternative of robbery” and the statutory definition of assault is applied to a case’s facts under this alternative. See State v. Heard, 636 N.W.2d 227, 230 (Iowa 2001). There are multiple ways one can commit assault under the statute. Adding the assault alternative to the robbery instructions in Watkins added multiple ways the jury could find the defendant committed robbery and thereby allowed the State to add a theory after the case was submitted for deliberation. Prior to revision of the instructions in order to convict, the jury in Watkins had to find the defendant threatened the victim with immediate serious injury or purposely put the victim in fear of immediate serious injury. Watkins, 463 N.W.2d at 17. Adding the assault alternative allowed the jury to convict if it only found the defendant intended his act to put the victim “in fear of immediate physical contact” rather than in fear of serious injury. See Iowa Code § 708.1(2). The assault alternative also goes beyond threats of serious injury and includes “physical contact which will be insulting or offensive to another.” See Iowa Code § 708.1(1). The multiple methods of committing assault, along with its broader definition, expanded the State’s case in Watkins. The revision was prejudicial to the defendant because he was denied the opportunity to address the assault alternative theory in closing argument. See Watkins, 463 N.W.2d at 18.

The revision made by the trial court in this instance did not expand the State’s theory of the case because the added “entering” language was legally synonymous with the original instruction containing the “breaking” language. The definitions “breaking” and “entering” under burglary law embody each other. Black’s Legal Dictionary provides the definition of “breaking” is, “[i]n the law of burglary, the act of entering a building without permission.” Black’s Law Dictionary 201 (8th ed. 2004) (emphasis supplied). The judge’s revised instruction clarified that breaking included any entry into the residence. Another element required a finding that the entry or breaking of the residence was without permission. The instruction did not add an alternative method of committing the offense and the instruction did not refer to any specific evidence or facts. The instruction was fair to both the prosecution and the defendant. Since the revised instruction merely clarified the law for the jury and provided a correct statement of the law, no abuse of discretion or error was committed.

AFFIRMED.

      . "The rules relating to the instruction of juries in civil cases ... apply to criminal cases.” Iowa R.Crim. P. 2.19(5)(f).

      . Iowa Code section 708.1 defines assault and provides in relevant part,
      An assault as defined in this section is a general intent crime. A person commits an assault when, without justification, the person does any of the following:
      1. Any act which is intended to cause pain or injury to, or which is intended to result in physical contact which will be insulting or offensive to another, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act.
      2. Any act which is intended to place another in fear of immediate physical contact which will be painful, injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act.
      3. Intentionally points any firearm toward another, or displays in a threatening manner any dangerous weapon toward another.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Michael BOLEN, et al., Respondents, v. Todd GLASS, Appellant, City of Duluth, Respondent.
    Nos. A06-1422, A06-1440.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    Aug. 14, 2008.

      Bradley J. Gunn, Malkerson, Gilliland & Martin, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.
    Stephanie Ann Ball, Fryberger, Buchanan, Smith & Frederick, Duluth, MN, for respondent.
    M. Alison Lutterman, Deputy City Attorney, Duluth, MN, for respondent.
   OPINION

ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice.

Appellant Todd Glass, pursuant to a permit issued by the City of Duluth, added gravel to a platted but undeveloped street adjoining his property. The gravel extended onto parts of the street where his neighbors, respondents Michael and Deborah Bolen and Joseph Zajac, own the underlying fee. The Bolens brought an action against Glass, alleging trespass and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court added Zajac as a plaintiff and ruled against Glass, ordering him to restore the street to its prior condition. The court of appeals affirmed the district court but modified the judgment to require Glass to restore only those parts of the street where he is not the underlying fee holder. We reverse.

Michael and Deborah Bolen, Joseph Za-jac, and Todd Glass own lots adjoining 40th Street in the Park Point neighborhood of Duluth. In 1902, the Duluth Common Council accepted a plat of the Oatka Beach Addition that identified 40th Street as Interlachen Street. The plat states that the owners of the property “dedicate to the public use the streets and avenues herein shown.” The Oatka Beach Addition plat indicates that Interlachen Street runs northeast-southwest between Lake Avenue and Minnesota Avenue. Lake Avenue runs along Lake Superior, and Minnesota Avenue runs along Superior Bay.

40th Street, which separates Blocks 1 and 2 of the Oatka Beach Addition, is 30 feet wide, two lots long, and slopes upward away from Minnesota Avenue. A street sign designates the intersection of 40th Street and Minnesota Avenue, but the City does not maintain any part of 40th Street. Former Duluth city engineer Michael Met-so testified at trial that 40th Street is “a public right-of-way that we likely would not develop as a public street.” Likewise, the district court found that “the City of Duluth ... has never ... taken steps to develop the platted 40th Street [cjorridor easement as a public street or thoroughfare.”

Michael and Deborah Bolen own Lots 11 and 24 of Block 1; the lots form 40th Street’s northwestern border. Lot 11 is on the Lake Superior side of the block, and Lot 24 is on the Minnesota Avenue side. Joseph Zajac owns Lot 15 of Block 2; the lot adjoins Minnesota Avenue and the southeastern border of 40th Street. Zajac uses 40th Street to access his garage, which stands on the northern corner of Lot 15 and extends slightly onto 40th Street. Todd Glass owns an L-shaped parcel in Block 2 consisting of Lots 1, 2, and 16. Lot 1 adjoins the southeastern border of 40th Street between Lot 15 and Lake Superior. Lot 2 is directly southeast of Lot 1 along Lake Superior, and Lot 16 is between Minnesota Avenue and Lot 2. A small white house formerly stood on Lot 1, but it was torn down before Glass purchased the property in 1998. Glass’s house and garage are located on Lots 2 and 16, respectively.

The Bolens and Zajac have sought to maintain exclusive use of the part of 40th Street between Lots 24 and 15. On November 3, 2003, they entered into a property agreement memorializing their understanding of their rights regarding 40th Street. The agreement (1) recited that the parties were the fee owners to the centerline of the parts of 40th Street adjoining their properties, subject to the right of the City to develop the street; (2) stated that the agreement was recorded to give notice of the parties’ withdrawal of permission for anyone else to use 40th Street; and (3) prohibited either party from giving anyone permission to use 40th Street without the prior consent of both parties. Additionally, Zajac installed a short fence across 40th Street, toward the rear of Lots 24 and 15, with the consent of Michael Bolen. Michael Bolen testified that he and Zajac entered into the property agreement and installed the fence “because it had become clear to us that Mr. Glass, by his actions and his statements, wanted to use the 40th Street easement as a driveway.”

In February 2005, Glass applied to the City of Duluth for a building permit to construct a new garage where the small white house once stood on Lot 1. Glass planned to remodel his home and intended to access it via 40th Street. Michael Met-so testified that a series of discussions, reviews, meetings, and site visits ensued, and Glass testified that his contractor informed him that the City had rejected his application because there was inadequate legal access to his property. In the spring of 2005, Glass applied for a private improvement permit authorizing him to add gravel to 40th Street. Metso subsequently informed Glass that the “consensus of all involved” in reviewing Glass’s building permit application and private improvement application was that Glass had the right to use 40th Street to access his property and that he would be permitted to make specific improvements so that he could use 40th Street.

On June 14, 2005, the City of Duluth Engineering Division issued a permit for the construction of “private improvements within the platted right-of-way of 40th St[reet] South to provide access to the driveway to Lot 1.” Glass cut down the fence that Zajac had installed across 40th Street, and, on June 16, a contractor hired by Glass deposited and spread gravel on 40th Street. Michael Bolen testified that the gravel spread on 40th Street extends approximately 20 feet onto parts of the street where he and Zajac own the underlying fee. Bolen also testified that 40th Street now looks like an actual street and that the “fairly abrupt drop” of 40th Street was “smoothed out by the addition of [the] gravel.” Likewise, Zajac testified that 40th Street now “looks like it could be public access to the lake or a public access to a boat ramp.”

On June 16, 2005, the same day that the gravel was spread on 40th Street, the Bo-lens sued Glass in St. Louis County District Court, alleging trespass and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Bo-lens also appeared before the district court that day, seeking a temporary restraining order enjoining Glass from constructing the driveway. The court granted the Bo-lens’ request for a restraining order and directed them to amend their complaint to add the City of Duluth as a party to the action.

Following a bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of the Bolens and Zajae, concluding that the City had “exceeded its powers and ... attempted to overlay a public easement with a private easement.” The court stated that “Glass cannot, by grant from a public authority, acquire rights in a dedicated public easement in derogation of the public’s ultimate easement rights or which burdens the adjoining servient estates in excess of the burden imposed by the plat dedication.” The court ordered that Glass and the City be permanently enjoined from developing 40th Street “except by proper legislative enactment and subsequent development of a public thoroughfare” and that Glass “fully restore the property to its prior condition” within 45 days.

The district court entered judgment in favor of the Bolens, and Glass and the City of Duluth appealed. After granting the City’s motion to consolidate the appeals, the court of appeals affirmed the district court but modified the judgment to provide that Glass be required to restore only those parts of 40th Street where he is not the underlying fee holder. Bolen v. Glass, 737 N.W.2d 856, 868 (Minn.App.2007). We granted Glass’s petition for review.

I.

The first issue we ' address is whether the City of Duluth had the authority to issue a permit providing for the construction of private improvements on 40th Street. Minnesota Statutes § 505.01, subd. 1 (Supp.2007), provides as follows: “Land donated for any public use in any municipality shall be held in the corporate name in trust for the purposes set forth or intended. A street, road, alley, trail, and other public way dedicated or donated on a plat shall convey an easement only.” Construing a prior version of Minn.Stat. § 505.01, we stated that “the legal effect of a plat dedication is a conveyance in trust to the municipality of a terminable easement only, in any area designated in the plat for public use, and the fee title thereto remains in the dedicator, subject to the easement.” Etzler v. Mondale, 266 Minn. 353, 363-64, 123 N.W.2d 603, 610 (1963). Because the Oatka Beach Addition plat states that the designated streets are “dedicate[d] to the public use,” a public easement over 40th Street was created upon the Duluth Common Councils acceptance of the plat in 1902.

As to the ownership of the underlying fee interest, we have recognized “that any abutting landowner owns to the middle of the platted street or alley and that the soil and its appurtenances, within the limits of such street or alley, belong to the owner in fee, subject only to the right of the public to use or remove the same for the purpose of improvement.” Kochevar v. City of Gilbert, 273 Minn. 274, 276, 141 N.W.2d 24, 26 (1966); see also Kooreny v. Dampier-Baird Mortuary, Inc., 207 Minn. 367, 370, 291 N.W. 611, 612 (1940) (stating that the abutting “landowner’s fee extends to the center of the street or highway, subject only to the public easement”). We have also explained that “when a street is dedicated by plat, a city may choose its own time to occupy, open, and use the street.” Vill. of Medford v. Wilson, 304 Minn. 250, 252, 230 N.W.2d 458, 459 (1975).

“The general rule is that, in matters of municipal concern, home rule cities have all the legislative power possessed by the legislature of the state, save as such power is expressly or impliedly withheld.” State v. City of Crookston, 252 Minn. 526, 528, 91 N.W.2d 81, 83 (1958). The Duluth City Charter grants the City “all powers, functions, rights and privileges usually exercised by, or which are incidental to, or inhere in, municipal corporations of like power and degree” and “all municipal power, functions, rights, privileges and immunities of every name and nature whatsoever.” Duluth, Minn., City Charter, ch. I, § 1. The charter also states that “[t]he council may by ordinance permit abutting owners to make use of portions of public highways not physically being used or occupied by the public upon such terms and conditions and by such procedure as the council, in each such ordinance, may provide.” Id, ch. XIII, § 100(d).

Duluth Ordinance No. 7055, § 1, provides as follows:

In addition to other authority possessed by the city engineer, there is hereby conferred upon the city engineer the authority to issue special permits to private parties to make local improvements in, upon or under the public highways and public grounds of the city, as such local improvements are defined and authorized by Chapter IX of the City Charter....

Duluth, Minn., Legis. Code, § 45-84 (1959). “Ordinances ... are presumed to be valid, and are not to be set aside by the courts unless their invalidity is clear.” State v. Taubert, 126 Minn. 371, 372, 148 N.W. 281, 282 (1914).

The adoption of Ordinance No. 7055, § 1, was within the City of Duluth’s authority as set forth in the Duluth City Charter. The City’s issuance of the private improvement permit, in turn, was authorized by the ordinance, which applies to all “public highways and public grounds.” Duluth, Minn., Legis. Code, § 45-84. Minnesota law is clear that the public has a property interest in platted streets that are undeveloped. Minn.Stat. § 505.01, subd. 1; Etzler, 266 Minn. at 363-64, 123 N.W.2d at 610; see also St. Paul & Duluth R.R. Co. v. City of Duluth, 73 Minn. 270, 275, 76 N.W. 35, 35 (1898) (stating that persons in possession of unopened platted streets “will, until the time arrives when such streets are required for actual public use, be presumed to hold subject to the permanent right of the public”). Based on this property interest, we conclude that platted but undeveloped streets constitute “public highways” or “public grounds” under the Duluth City Charter. Accordingly, we hold that the City of Duluth had the authority to issue a permit providing for the construction of private improvements on 40th Street.

II.

Having determined that the City of Duluth had the authority to issue a permit providing for the construction of private improvements on 40th Street, we next address whether Glass has the right to use 40th Street. It is a well-established rule of law in Minnesota “that one purchasing a lot within a plat may rely upon the dedication of streets and alleys shown therein, and possesses the right to use the same.” Etzler, 266 Minn. at 364, 123 N.W.2d at 611; accord Bryant v. Gustafson, 230 Minn. 1, 8, 40 N.W.2d 427, 432 (1950). Indeed, “[e]ach purchaser of a lot is entitled to the benefit of the plat as it appears when he purchases it. If there are public streets, they inure to his benefit.” Gilbert v. Emerson, 60 Minn. 62, 66, 61 N.W. 820, 822 (1895). Because 40th Street appears on the Oatka Beach Addition plat, any purchaser of a lot within the plat is entitled to use the streets designated on the plat. We hold, therefore, that Glass has the right to use 40th Street as an owner of a lot within the- Oatka Beach Addition plat.

Because the City of Duluth had the authority to issue a permit providing for the construction of private improvements on 40th Street and Glass is entitled to use 40th Street as an owner of a lot within the Oatka Beach Addition plat, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals.

Reversed.

MAGNUSON, C.J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

APPENDIX

      . The record suggests that Lake Avenue is an undeveloped street.

      . A map of the parties' lots is reproduced in the appendix accompanying this opinion. The map, which was introduced as an exhibit at trial, is provided for illustrative purposes only.

      . The Bolens had moved the district court for an order adding Zajae as a plaintiff in the case. The court found that Zajae "is a vital, indispensable party herein” and ordered that he "be named as a plaintiff.” The court's order that Zajae be added as a plaintiff is not challenged here.

      . The parties raise a variety of other issues in this appeal, including whether 40th Street has been opened by public use, whether Glass is entitled to access his property via 40th Street because he is an adjoining landowner, and whether the general public is entitled to use 40th Street. We need not reach these issues in light of our resolution of the case on the grounds set forth above.


author: PAGE, Justice.

text:
    STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Nicholas E. BARTYLLA, Appellant.
    No. A07-1166.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    Aug. 21, 2008.

      Lawrence Hammerling, Chief State Appellate Public Defender, Benjamin J. Butler, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Paul, MN, for Appellant.
    Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN; and Michael 0. Freeman, Hen-nepin County Attorney, Linda M. Freyer, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondent.
   OPINION

PAGE, Justice.

Appellant Nicholas E. Bartylla was convicted of murder in the first degree while committing criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(2) (2006), and was sentenced to life imprisonment for the November 9, 2002, murder of May Mary Pelto. At Bartylla’s trial, the State presented evidence indicating that the profile of DNA left at the Pelto crime scene was a “cold hit” match to the profile of Bartylla’s DNA, which had been entered into a state-mandated DNA database of known DNA providers. In this direct appeal, Bartylla argues through counsel that: (1) the taking of his DNA sample under Minn.Stat. § 609.117 (2002) was a warrant-less, suspicionless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution; (2) the trial court erred in allowing an expert to use the “product rule” to describe the statistical significance of the cold hit DNA match; and (3) admission of evidence of Bartylla’s previous burglary conviction prejudiced Bartylla’s right to a fair trial. In his pro se supplemental brief, Bartylla alleges 14 additional trial errors. We affirm.

On November 8, 2002, Gary McCullum had dinner and watched television with his 88-year-old mother, May Mary Pelto, who lived alone in a fourplex in Maple Grove, Minnesota. He went home around 9:30 p.m. Pelto called McCullum at 12:30 a.m. and said she was going to bed. McCullum called Pelto at about 10 a.m. on November 9 to remind her to take her prescription medicine, but the line was busy. He continued calling Pelto for the next 2 hours to no avail. He eventually went to her home.

As he approached Pelto’s home, McCul-lum noticed the blinds in her bedroom were down, which was unusual. According to McCullum, although he used a key to enter the home, he did not think the front door was locked at the time because there was a lack of resistance when he turned the key to unlock the door. He found Pelto lying on her bed on her back, with the covers pulled up. When he saw injuries on her face, he called 911. He went downstairs and noticed that the sliding glass door, which his mother did not use, was open 3 to 4 inches, although the drapes on the door were closed.

Officers responding to the 911 call found Pelto lying on the bed with no pulse. She had a black eye, “blood [was] coming from either her mouth or her nose area,” and there was what appeared to be blood on the wall next to the bed. They also observed the partially open sliding glass door. A crime lab technician on the scene testified that, although Pelto’s purse with cash in it was in plain sight, it appeared that nothing had been taken from the home. Investigators from the medical examiner’s office took photographs documenting the “essentially undisturbed” crime scene. The position of Pelto’s body in the bed suggested that she had been sexually assaulted. A sexual assault kit collected during Pelto’s autopsy revealed the presence of semen, confirming that Pelto had been sexually assaulted.

In addition to evidence of the sexual assault, the autopsy revealed “blunt force injury” inflicted on Pelto’s face. Pelto had bruising inside her mouth, fractured facial bones, a contusion covering “the whole right side of her face,” a superficial brain injury, and small bruises and scratches on her back and hands. In the medical examiner’s opinion, the cause of Pelto’s death was “homicidal violence” and the manner of her death was “homicide.” Without any leads, the Pelto homicide investigation grew cold. Based on a DNA cold hit match 3 years later, the State charged Bartylla with first-degree murder for Pel-to’s death.

At trial, Detective John Seery testified that he was involved with the Pelto investigation first as an investigator and subsequently as part of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) cold case homicide unit. He testified that there was no evidence of a forced entry at Pelto’s apartment. He further testified that DNA analysis was performed on semen taken from Pelto’s body at the autopsy. A DNA profile was then developed and entered into a forensic database of DNA profiles from unknown individuals suspected of being involved in unsolved crimes.

Suzanne Weston-Kirkegaard, a DNA analyst from the Hennepin County Sheriffs Department Crime Lab, testified as an expert witness for the State. In addition to providing general information about DNA and her laboratory procedures, she testified that she performed the DNA typing of the sperm and semen found on vaginal swabs taken from Pelto’s body. She also tested DNA samples from Pelto’s son and 53 other known individuals “plus assorted effects from different people” and determined that none of the resulting DNA profiles matched the DNA left at the Pelto crime scene. Weston-Kirkegaard entered the DNA profile from Pelto’s unknown contributor into the state-mandated database maintained by the BCA and also asked the BCA to run searches of the profile against the state’s database of DNA profiles from known contributors. On January 13, 2006, Weston-Kirkegaard was informed that a match had been made. The match was with the profile of a DNA sample taken from Bartylla, which had been placed in the BCA’s DNA database of known contributors pursuant to the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 609.117. A second DNA sample then was taken from Bartylla that, when compared with the profile of the sample taken from Pelto, confirmed the match. Weston-Kirkegaard testified that all 13 of the DNA loci tested plus the sex chromosomes from the DNA sample left at the Pelto crime scene matched Bartylla’s DNA profile. Weston-Kirkegaard also tested multiple objects found at the crime scene for DNA, including the sheet, the carpet, the blood on the wall, a bandage, and a towel. Nothing was found that was not explained by either Pelto’s or Bartylla’s DNA. In addition, Weston-Kirkegaard testified about the procedure she used to calculate the likelihood of a match between the crime scene DNA and Bartylla’s DNA. Using the “product rule,” she testified that among unrelated people in the world, it was likely that the DNA recovered from the Pelto crime scene would match only one person.

There was also testimony that Bartylla’s mother lived in Maple Grove at the time of the murder, that McCullum had never heard of Bartylla before being notified by the police that Bartylla was a suspect, that McCullum had no reason to believe Pelto knew Bartylla before her murder, that a woman who was dating Bartylla at the time of Pelto’s murder lived with her parents in Maple Grove, that Bartylla visited the parents’ home, which was approximately 400 yards from Pelto’s home, and that he sometimes slept in the woman’s car in her parents’ driveway.

At the request of the State, the court admitted evidence of Bartylla’s 2004 burglary conviction. The victim, a 40-year-old female school teacher who lived alone with her dog, testified that she returned to her home in Elk River, Minnesota, around midnight on August 27, 2003. She testified that she fell asleep on the couch in the living room and did not believe that she had left any doors or windows open. The next thing she remembers is waking up and not being able to see. She knew she had been injured but had no memory of what happened. She was airlifted by helicopter to the hospital, where she remained for 4 days. She sustained several injuries to the face, including the shifting over of her entire face, damage to the root beds of her teeth, a scar at the back of her neck, severe vertigo, bruises and abrasions on her face, and damage to her ears. Her eyes were swollen shut. The teacher testified that she was not aware of anything having been taken from her house and that she did not know and had not previously had any contact with Bartylla. Finally, there was testimony that the teacher’s blood was found on Bartylla’s clothes at the time of his arrest.

The only defense witness to testify was Dr. Laurence Mueller, a population geneticist whose testimony focused on the DNA evidence. He testified that there is a debate in the scientific community regarding the reliability of the methods used to interpret the statistical significance of DNA evidence in cold hit cases. According to Dr. Mueller, the chance of a coincidental match is elevated in cold hit cases, and therefore the product rule should not be used. Dr. Mueller identified three competing schools of thought on the proper way to express the statistical significance of DNA matches in cold hit cases, but he was aware of no experts in the field who would support using the product rule to express the statistical significance of a match in a cold hit case. Dr. Mueller did not calculate how the alternative methods of presenting the statistical significance would change the DNA match probability in this case. Nor did Bartylla seek to counter the State’s use of the product rule by offering statistical evidence based on any of those alternative methods. On cross, Dr. Mueller did, however, acknowledge that there was a match between the DNA profile from the Pelto crime scene and the profile taken from Bartylla. He also testified that the fact that no match was found in the DNA database for a 3-year period suggests “something about that rarity” of the match.

Bartylla exercised his Fifth Amendment right not to testify at his trial. The jury found him guilty of murder in the first degree while committing or attempting to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree. The trial court sentenced Bartylla to life imprisonment. This direct appeal followed.

I.

We first address Bartylla’s argument that Minn.Stat. § 609.117 (2002) violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against warrantless, suspicionless searches. In 2002, Minn.Stat. § 609.117 provided that

[t]he court shall order an offender to provide a biological specimen for the purpose of DNA analysis as defined in section 299C.155 when: (1) the court sentences a person charged with violating or attempting to violate any of the following, and the person is convicted of that offense or of any offense arising out of the same set of circumstances: ... (ix) burglary under section 609.582, subdivision 1.

Minn.Stat. § 609.117, subd. 1. The legislature amended the statute in 2005. See Act of June 2, 2005, ch. 136, art. 12, § 9, 2005 Minn. Laws 901, 1064-66. It now applies to all felony convictions. See id; Minn. Stat. § 609.117, subd. 1(1) (2006).

The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo. Soohoo v. Johnson, 731 N.W.2d 815, 821 (Minn.2007). We exercise the power to declare a law unconstitutional “only when absolutely necessary in the particular case and then with great caution.” Id (internal quotation marks omitted). It is presumed that, in enacting the statute, the legislature did not intend to violate either the U.S. Constitution or the Minnesota Constitution. Minn.Stat. § 645.17(3) (2006). Therefore, we will uphold a statute unless the challenging party demonstrates that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. Hamilton v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 600 N.W.2d 720, 722 (Minn.1999).

Bartylla argues that because taking a sample of his DNA pursuant to section 609.117 is not permitted by any exception to the Fourth Amendment and does not meet the “special needs” test for warrant-less searches first articulated by Justice Blackmun in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurring), the search was unreasonable. Alternatively, he asserts that the search was unreasonable even under a totality-of-the-circumstances balancing test. The State argues that courts have consistently upheld similar federal and state statutes against constitutional challenges. While the State contends that the totality-of-the-eircum-stances analysis is the proper one, it argues that Minn.Stat. § 609.117 “passes constitutional muster” under either the special needs or the totality test.

“The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977). Ordinarily, the reasonableness of a search depends on governmental compliance with the Warrant Clause, which requires authorities to demonstrate probable cause to a neutral magistrate and thereby convince him or her to provide formal authorization to proceed with a search by issuance of a particularized warrant. See United States v. U.S. Dist. Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297, 315-16, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972). “However, the general rule of the Warrant Clause is not unyielding.” United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (plurality opinion).

Using a totality-of-the-circumstances test that balances the state’s interests against the intrusion into the citizen’s personal security, the United States Supreme Court has carved out a number of exceptions to the Warrant Clause. See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-63, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (concluding that a warrantless search of a suspect’s home conducted incident to an arrest is reasonable if restrained to the area within the immediate control of the suspect); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (holding a police officer may stop and frisk a person without probable cause if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person may be armed). United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118, 122 S.Ct. 587, 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001) (applying totality of the circumstances to uphold search of probationer’s apartment based on reasonable suspicion). The Court has also recognized the validity of suspicionless searches in exempted areas like airports, see Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 323, 117 S.Ct. 1295, 137 L.Ed.2d 513 (1997), and prison cells, Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525-26, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); in “closely regulated” industries, New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 702, 107 S.Ct. 2636, 96 L.Ed.2d 601 (1987); and when the government has a “special need” that is unrelated to general law enforcement, New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 353, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurring).

The Supreme Court recently applied the totality-of-the-circumstances test to carve out an exception allowing suspicionless searches of convicts who are on parole, as long as the searches are not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing. Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 848-56, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006). Both before and after the Court’s decision in Samson, federal circuit courts considering whether DNA samples obtained pursuant to a DNA profiling statute were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment have split on whether the issue should be analyzed as a logical extension of the Court’s holding in Knights or whether it should be analyzed under the special needs test, which allows a suspicionless search when the search serves a non-law enforcement need and the government’s needs behind the search outweighs the privacy interest invaded. Although the federal circuit courts are split on which test to apply, they have uniformly held that DNA samples obtained pursuant to a DNA profiling statute were not obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Amerson, 483 F.3d 73, 78 n. 3 (2d Cir.) (“All the federal circuits that have considered the question have upheld the state and federal DNA indexing laws, as have the overwhelming majority of district courts and state courts.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 646, 169 L.Ed.2d 515 (2007).

The majority of circuits have applied a totality-of-the-circumstanees balancing test before coming to their conclusions. See Wilson v. Collins, 517 F.3d 421, 427 (6th Cir.2008); United States v. Kriesel, 508 F.3d 941, 946-47 (9th Cir.2007); United States v. Weikert, 504 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir.2007); Banks v. United States, 490 F.3d 1178, 1184 (10th Cir.2007); United States v. Kraklio, 451 F.3d 922, 924 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 611, 166 L.Ed.2d 453 (2006); Johnson v. Quander, 440 F.3d 489, 496 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 103, 166 L.Ed.2d 255 (2006); United States v. Sczubelek, 402 F.3d 175, 184 (3d Cir.2005); Padgett v. Donald, 401 F.3d 1273, 1278 n. 4 (11th Cir.2005); Groceman v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 354 F.3d 411, 413 (5th Cir.2004) (per curiam); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 307 & n. 2 (4th Cir.1992). For example, in United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813, 839 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (plurality opinion), the court applied the totality-of-the-circumstances test and concluded that the governmental interest served in collecting DNA outweighed the minimal intrusion into a conditional releasee’s privacy. Thus, it found that the conditional releasee’s expectation of privacy is limited. Id. at 833-34. In doing so, the circuit court noted “the well-established principle that parolees and other conditional releas-ees are not entitled to the full panoply of rights and protections possessed by the general public.” Id. at 833; see also State v. Anderson, 733 N.W.2d 128, 139 (Minn.2007) (stating that a probationer’s “reasonable expectation of privacy was diminished merely by virtue of his status as a probationer”). The court further noted that the restriction of an offender’s rights is meant to rehabilitate the offender while protecting the public, which “ ‘require[s] and justifies] the exercise of supervision to assure that the restrictions are in fact observed.’ ” Kincade, 379 F.3d at 824 (quoting Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 875, 107 S.Ct. 3164, 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987)). The court identified the following governmental interests as compelling: ensuring a releasee’s compliance with the terms of release, reducing recidivism, and helping bring closure to victims of unsolved crimes. Id. at 838-39. The court noted that these “monumental” interests “are intimately related to the core purposes of conditional release: rehabilitating convicted offenders and sheltering society from future victimization.” Id. at 839.

The Kincade court explained that the intrusion into a conditional releasee’s privacy is minimal for two reasons. First, offenders lose “ ‘any legitimate expectation of privacy in the identifying information derived from blood sampling.’ ” Id. at 837 (quoting Rise v. Oregon, 59 F.3d 1556, 1560 (9th Cir.1995)). Acknowledging that there are concerns over genetic information beyond the identification information that may be derived from DNA samples, id. at 836-37, the court nonetheless concluded that the rift between an offender and society is so “severe and fundamental” that it,

along with the government’s concomitantly greater interest in closely monitoring and supervising conditional re-leasees, is in turn sufficient to sustain suspicionless searches of his person and property even in the absence of some non-law enforcement “special need” — at least where such searches meet the Fourth Amendment touchstone of reasonableness as gauged by the totality of the circumstances.

Id. at 835.

The Second and Seventh Circuits have applied the special needs test. See United States v. Amerson, 483 F.3d 73, 78 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 646, 169 L.Ed.2d 515 (2007); United States v. Hook, 471 F.3d 766, 773 (7th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2081, 167 L.Ed.2d 771 (2007). That test requires a court to first determine whether the asserted governmental interest serves a non-law enforcement special need. Amerson, 483 F.3d at 80-83. If it does, then the court balances the special need against: “(1) the nature of the privacy-interest involved; (2) the character and degree of the governmental intrusion; and (3) the nature and immediacy of the government’s needs, and the efficacy of its policy in addressing those needs.” Id. at 81, 83-84. The Amerson court first determined that a DNA-indexing statute serves a non-law enforcement special need in helping to solve crimes. Id. at 81-83. Next, the court balanced the “special need” against the offender’s privacy interests. Id. at 83. Under the first factor of the test, the court concluded that probationers have diminished but extant privacy expectations. Id. at 84. As for the second factor, the court noted that methods used for obtaining DNA samples are minimally invasive. Id. at 84-85. Regarding the third factor, the court stated that “the government has a compelling interest in rapidly and accurately solving crimes and that DNA-based records of the identity of as many people as possible, and especially past offenders, effectuates this interest.” Id. at 87. The court concluded that the government’s interests greatly outweighed the probationers’ reduced privacy expectations and therefore held the DNA Act did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 89.

State courts considering the constitutionality of DNA profiling statutes requiring offenders to submit a DNA sample have also used either the totality-of-the-circumstances test or the special needs test. See, e.g., Polston v. State, 360 Ark. 317, 201 S.W.3d 406, 410 (2005) (balancing test); Gaines v. State, 116 Nev. 359, 998 P.2d 166, 172 (2000) (balancing test); State v. O’Hagen, 189 N.J. 140, 914 A.2d 267, 277 (2007) (special needs test); State v. Scarborough, 201 S.W.3d 607, 618 (Tenn.2006) (balancing test); State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53, 955 A.2d 1144, 2008 WL 1914658 (2008) (special needs test); Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315, 319 (Wyo.1999) (balancing test). Invariably, those courts have upheld the DNA profiling statutes at issue, concluding that they do not violate the Fourth Amendment. O’Hagen, 914 A.2d at 273 (noting unanimity among appellate courts in sustaining the constitutionality of DNA statutes); see also People v. Garvin, 219 Ill.2d 104, 301 Ill.Dec. 423, 847 N.E.2d 82, 90 (2006) (concluding that the outcome is “the same under either test”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 359, 166 L.Ed.2d 133 (2006).

We read Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006), to suggest that under a totality-of-the-cireumstances test, a warrantless, sus-picionless collection of a convict’s DNA pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.117 does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Applying the totality-of-the-circumstances test to the facts of this case, we conclude that, as a result of his felony burglary conviction, the warrantless, suspicionless taking of Bartylla’s DNA pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.117 for purposes of placing his DNA profile into the state-mandated database did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. An incarcerated prisoner such as Bartylla has an even lower expectation of privacy than does a probationer, parolee, or conditional releasee. See Sam- son, 547 U.S. at 850, 126 S.Ct. 2193; Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 524, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984). Moreover, the physical intrusion involved in acquiring the DNA sample from Bartylla was minimal.

The State’s interests here include exonerating the innocent, deterring recidivism, identifying offenders of past and future crimes, and bringing closure for victims of unsolved crimes. The State’s interests are substantial, and when balanced against' Bartylla’s expectations of privacy and the minimal intrusion involved, we conclude that the collection of Bartylla’s DNA pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.117 did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.

II.

We turn now to Bartylla’s claim that Minn.Stat. § 609.117 violates Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution, which provides that

[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.

Minn. Const, art. I, § 10. Bartylla contends that, although the state constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures is textually identical to the Fourth Amendment, Minnesota is more protective of its citizens’ rights.

“Looking to the state constitution as an independent basis for individual rights is a task we approach ‘with restraint and some delicacy,’ especially when the right at stake is guaranteed by identical or substantially similar language in the federal constitution.” State v. Anderson, 733 N.W.2d 128, 140 (Minn.2007) (quoting Kahn v. Griffin, 701 N.W.2d 815, 828 (Minn.2005)). Furthermore,

when we interpret Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution, decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting the Fourth ■ Amendment are persuasive, although not compelling, authority. However, we are free to interpret the Minnesota Constitution as affording greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than the United States Constitution, but do not do so cavalierly.

In re Welfare of B.R.K., 658 N.W.2d 565, 577 (Minn.2003) (citation omitted). We have said that we will independently apply the state constitution

“when we conclude that the United States Supreme Court has made a sharp or radical departure from its previous decisions or approach to the law and when we discern no persuasive reason to follow such a departure. We will also apply the state constitution if we determine that the Supreme Court has retrenched on Bill of Rights issues, or if we determine that federal precedent does not adequately protect our citizens’ basic rights and liberties.”

Anderson, 733 N.W.2d at 140 (quoting Kahn, 701 N.W.2d at 828). Here, we conclude that the Samson totality-of-the-cir-cumstanees test we adopt today is neither a sharp nor radical departure from the Court’s previous decisions or approach to the law. Further, we do not believe that the Samson approach reflects a retrenchment on the Bill of Rights. Finally, on the precise issue before us in this case, we are satisfied that the protections adopted by the federal courts provide adequate protection for the basic rights and liberties of Minnesota’s citizens. Therefore, we decline, in this case, to interpret Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution more broadly than the Fourth Amendment. Because we have concluded that the collection of DNA samples pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.117 does not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, we also conclude that such collections do not violate Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution.

III.

We next address Bartylla’s argument that the trial court erred when it permitted the State’s expert witness to express the probability of the match between his DNA profile and that of the unknown profile from the Pelto murder scene using the product rule without first holding a Frye-Mack hearing. Bartylla argues that whether a “cold hit” DNA match requires a different statistical interpretation than the product rule is a novel scientific question that should have been addressed at a Frye-Mack hearing. The State responds that the product rule properly expresses the probability statistics in cold hit cases. In making this argument, the State contends that the relevant question, as determined by the trial court, is how frequently a DNA profile is expected to occur in the world’s population, which the product rule addresses, not “how often a particular DNA profile is expected to occur in a DNA database.”

For evidence based on “new scientific techniques” to be admissible, the proponent of the evidence must show that (1) “experts in the field widely share the view that the results of scientific testing are scientifically reliable” and (2) “the particular evidence derived from the technique and used in an individual case must have a foundation that is scientifically reliable,” that is, “the laboratory conducting the tests in the individual case complied with appropriate standards and controls.” State v. Roman Nose, 649 N.W.2d 815, 818-19 (Minn.2002).

Bartylla contends that the expression of the statistical significance of DNA matches in cold hit cases is “a new scientific technique” that requires a Frye-Mack hearing because it has not been shown that the product rule is generally accepted in the scientific community for use in such cases. Bartylla does not claim that scientists disagree about the science or mathematics underlying the product rule or that scientists disagree that the product rule accurately answers the question of what is the probability of a match in the general population. He does claim, however, that the probability of a match in the general population answers the wrong question and that the question that should be asked is what is the probability of a match in the DNA database. He argues that the product rule does not answer that question because it fails to account for the increased likelihood of a coincidental match that grows as the size of the database search grows. During pretrial proceedings, Bar-tylla put forth three alternative methods which he considered more appropriate for expressing that significance. Although Bartylla put forth these three methods, he did not advocate for or move the trial court to adopt any one of the three methods. Nor does he do so here. Declining to hold a Frye-Mack hearing, preclude use of the product rule, or require use of one of the other methods, the trial court found that, while there may be more than one way to express the statistical significance of the DNA match in cold hit cases, those methods do not involve issues of scientific technique requiring a Frye-Mack hearing.

We agree that, while there may be more than one way of expressing the statistical significance in cold hit cases, those different methods do not involve issues of scientific technique and no Frye-Mack hearing was required. As long as it is clear that the expert witness’s response at trial about the probability of the DNA match answers the question asked, there is no error. Here, the question was, essentially, “What is the probability of the match in the general population?” The product rule expert properly answered that question.' Bartylla does not contend that the product rule statistics used here were either inaccurate or answered a question other than the probability of a match in the general population. In essence, his contention is that a different question should have been asked — how often the DNA profile would be expected to appear in a database the size of the one in which his profile was included. Interestingly, although Bartylla’s expert witness discussed the other questions that, in his opinion, could be asked when addressing a cold hit database match, the expert did not answer any of those questions. Thus, we conclude that it was not error for the court to allow the State to use the product rule at trial to express the statistical significance of the match between Bartylla’s DNA profile and that of the DNA profile found at the Pelto crime scene.

IV.

We next consider whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Bartylla’s burglary conviction at Bartylla’s murder trial. We review a court’s eviden-tiary rulings for abuse of discretion. State v. Kennedy, 585 N.W.2d 385, 389 (Minn.1998). A defendant appealing the admission of evidence has the burden to show it was erroneous and prejudicial. Id.

Generally, evidence is admissible only if it is relevant. Minn. R. Evid. 402. Evidence of a defendant’s other crimes are not admissible to prove the defendant’s character for committing crimes. Minn. R. Evid. 404(b). Such evidence, often referred to as Spreigl evidence, may be admissible to show motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity, or common plan or scheme. State v. Gomez, 721 N.W.2d 871, 877 (Minn.2006); see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 139 N.W.2d 167 (1965); Minn. R. Evid. 404(b). Under the common plan or scheme exception, other-crimes evidence is admissible if it has a “marked similarity in modus operandi to the charged offense” that tends to corroborate evidence of the charged offense. State v. Ness, 707 N.W.2d 676, 688 (Minn.2006).

For Spreigl evidence to be admissible, the State must first provide notice of its intent to use the evidence. Id. at 686. The State must also clearly indicate what the evidence is being offered to prove. Id. In addition, there must be clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was involved in the other crime or bad act, the evidence must be relevant and material to the State’s case, and the probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice to the defendant. Id. If it is “a close call” whether the evidence should be admitted, the trial court should exclude it. Id. at 685.

Bartylla contends that his conviction for the burglary of the school teacher’s home was not relevant to prove his identity as the perpetrator of Pelto’s rape and murder. He claims that because the burglary did not involve a sexual assault,, it was “strikingly dissimilar” to Pelto’s assault. He further argues that, in light of the DNA evidence admitted against him, the admission of evidence related to the burglary conviction resulted in unfair prejudice that outweighed any probative value the evidence may have had. In addition, he argues that there was “a reasonable possibility” that the admission of evidence relating to the burglary conviction significantly affected the verdict because there was “disagreement over the statistical significance of the DNA match” elicited from the experts at trial.

The State offered evidence at Bartylla’s trial relating to the assault that occurred during the 2003 burglary to prove identity, absence of mistake, and common scheme or plan. On appeal, the State first argues that the burglary and assault of the school teacher and the rape and murder of Pelto are “substantially similar in time and mo-dus operandi,” based on the following facts: only 10 months separated the two crimes, both crimes involved entry into homes through unlocked doors and assaults on women home alone, the assaults included severe beatings with fists primarily on the right sides of the women’s faces and heads, and neither crime included theft. The State also contends that evidence relating to the conviction was probative on the issue of identity because, while the DNA evidence was compelling, it was also circumstantial, not dispositive, and subject to Bartylla’s expert’s questioning. The State also points out that the admission of evidence of other crimes has been upheld in other cases involving DNA evidence. Finally, the State argues that if evidence relating to the conviction was admitted in error, the error was harmless.

There is no argument here that the State did not give Bartylla notice of its intent to introduce evidence of his burglary and assault of the school teacher or inform him of the purpose for which that evidence was to be used. Nor is there any contention that Bartylla’s involvement in the burglary was not shown by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, we are left to consider whether the evidence relating to the burglary was relevant and material to the State’s case and whether the probative value of that evidence was outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice to Bartylla. Ness, 707 N.W.2d. at 686.

The trial court explained in some detail on the record its rationale for admitting the evidence relating to the burglary conviction. With respect to relevance, the court found that the assaults on Pelto and the school teacher were 10 months apart and that there was a “close relationship in terms of modus operandi.” The trial court also found that: (1) both incidents involved entering a woman’s home without consent through a door that had been inadvertently left open; (2) “both incidents involve[d] a woman home alone late at night”; (3) “[i]n both cases, the assaults occurred sometime after midnight”; (4) neither of the incidents appears to have been motivated by theft; (5) both victims were strangers to Bartylla; and (6) both victims were severely beaten, resulting in “broken and fractured facial bones.” The trial court also found that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential for unfair prejudice because the State’s case was based on circumstantial evidence and the DNA evidence was “certainly not dis-positive” and was “subject to alternative explanations.”

The central issue in this case was the identity of Pelto’s killer. While DNA evidence implicated Bartylla, the evidence as suggested by Dr. Mueller’s testimony was subject to alternative explanations and was therefore not dispositive. The burglary evidence is probative with respect to identity and common scheme or plan because of the marked similarity between the facts underlying the burglary and the facts underlying Pelto’s murder. Although the evidence relating to the burglary may have painted a poor picture of Bartylla when balanced against its probative value, we conclude that it did not unfairly prejudice him. In addition, the trial court gave two cautionary instructions to the jury about the use of the evidence, one immediately before the evidence was presented and one as part of the jury instructions. We have stated that a cautionary instruction “lessen[s] the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence.” Kennedy, 585 N.W.2d at 392. Thus, any potential unfair prejudice was mitigated by the cautionary instructions. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence relating to Bartylla’s burglary conviction.

V.

Finally, Bartylla raises 14 claims of error in his pro se supplemental brief. As best as we can determine from that brief, he asserts that: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because he was not allowed to call witnesses at trial, counsel failed to move for a lesser included charge, counsel did not attempt to negotiate a lesser charge, and Bartylla was not “given a discovery of the case”; (2) the jury selection was prejudicial because it was not a jury of Bartylla’s peers and one juror was dismissed because he did not have the proper level of education; (3) the legality of the confirmatory DNA sample taken from Bartylla in 2005 was not addressed; (4) the State’s witnesses lied about and threatened the other suspects; (5) counsel decided not to call a witness that “could have spoken on the Appellant’s behalf’; (6) “[t]he detective’s shallow knowledge of DNA should have disallowed him from testifying on DNA”; (7) there was “unlawful character assassination” of Bartylla at the trial by “bádgering the Appellant and his name” and by stating “that the Appellant is a convicted killer and has the M.O. of a killer”; (8) counsel did not move for credit for time served since 2003; (9) counsel did not move for a lesser charge of second-degree murder, manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter; (10) “[prejudicial detectives working in collaboration with witnesses and others while still entering the open crime scene until 2006”; (11) due to counsel’s ineffective assistance, Bartylla was not allowed to testify regarding the prejudice under claim 10; (12) counsel did not challenge the time or cause of death; (13) the detectives investigating the crime scene were prejudiced by their personal involvement as friends and neighbors of witnesses in the case; and (14) the judge made an “unfair ruling” during and after the trial. Each of these assertions lacks either an argument to support it or citations to legal authority or both.

We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority. See State v. Krosch, 642 N.W.2d 713, 719 (Minn.2002) (deeming arguments set out in the defendant’s pro se supplemental brief waived because “[t]he brief eontain[ed] no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations”); see also Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339, 22 N.W.2d 164, 166 (1946) (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”). Because Bartylla’s pro se arguments are lacking in supportive arguments and/or legal authority, and because no prejudicial error “is obvious on mere inspection,” we deem Bartylla to have waived his pro se claims.

Affirmed.

MAGNUSON, C.J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

      . A "cold hit” occurs when an unknown suspect is identified by matching an unknown DNA contributor's DNA profile from an unsolved crime with the DNA profile of a known contributor from a DNA database.

      . Although the record is not clear, it appears that Bartylla provided his DNA sample for the database pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.117 (2002) after being convicted of burglary in 2004. That statute required certain convicted felons to provide DNA samples. The statute was amended in 2005 to include some nonfel-ony convictions that arise out of the same set of circumstances as a felony. See Act of June 2, 2005, ch. 136, art. 12, § 9, 2005 Minn. Laws 901, 1064-66. The question of whether we would apply Minn.Stat. § 609.117 (2006) to nonfelonies is not before us.

      . Pursuant to the product rule, "the probability of a random match at each loci is multiplied together.” State v. Roman Nose, 667 N.W.2d 386, 393 n. 3 (Minn.2003). The resulting number is the frequency with which the tested profile would occur in various populations. United States v. Jenkins, 887 A.2d 1013, 1018 (D.C.2005).

      . The first method put forth is the method advocated in 1992 by the National Research Council (NRC). That method requires that the DNA loci used to search the DNA database for a match not be included in the calculation of the probability of the resulting match. The second method was recommended in 1996 by the NRC for situations involving DNA database hits. The NRC recommended that in such situations the frequency of a DNA match as calculated by the product rule should be multiplied by the number of people in the database searched. This method has been endorsed for database matches by the DNA Advisory Board. See DNA Advisory Board, Statistical and Population Genetics Issues Affecting the Evaluation of the Frequency of Occurrence of DNA Profiles Calcidated From Pertinent Population Database(s), 2 Forensic Science Communications (July 2000), available at http://www. fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/dnas-tat.htm. The final method is called the Bayesian approach. The Bayesian approach factors in the mathematical significance of the people who are excluded by the database trawl.

      . The court was specifically referring to obtaining DNA from an individual by using buc-oa1 cheek swabs or the drawing of blood.

      . Our conclusion that the physical intrusion involved in acquiring the DNA sample from Bartylla for purposes of identification was minimal should not be read as suggesting that we would consider an intrusion into Bartyl-la’s body to obtain DNA for purposes other than identification to also be minimal or that such an intrusion would not violate the Fourth Amendment. Those are questions not presented by this case, and therefore we do not address them here.

      . DNA, a long, double-stranded molecule, is found in chromosomes in cell nuclei. It is found in all cells that have a nucleus. Most sections of DNA vary little among individual human beings. Polymorphic sections, however, do vary. If two fragments do not match, then they could not share a common source, but if they do match, then they may have a common source. The underlying theory of forensic use of DNA profiles is that as the number and variability of the polymorphisms used in the typing procedure increases, the odds of two people having the same profile decrease[ ].

        State v. Roman Nose, 649 N.W.2d 815, 821 n. 6 (Minn.2002).


author:
HARTEN, Judge.

      JOHNSON, Judge ROSS, Judge

text:
    David Lee LAASE, Respondent, v. 2007 CHEVROLET TAHOE, Appellant.
    No. A07-2023.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    Aug. 26, 2008.

      Stephen V. Grigsby, Princeton, MN, and Brian P. Karalus, St. Paul, MN, for Respondent.
    Jeffrey R. Edblad, Isanti County Attorney, Shila A. Walek Hooper, Assistant County Attorney, Cambridge, MN, for Appellant.
    Considered and decided by ROSS, Presiding Judge; JOHNSON, Judge; and HARTEN, Judge.
   OPINION

HARTEN, Judge.

Appellant 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe (the vehicle) was seized in Isanti County because its driver, one of the vehicle’s two joint owners, was convicted of a designated offense. After a hearing, the district court rejected the county’s argument that the innocent-owner defense did not apply and ordered the vehicle to be returned to its other joint owner. The county challenges that order. Subsequently, the county moved for and was granted a stay of the order pending this appeal.

FACTS

On 17 May 2006, in Isanti County, Jean Laase, wife of respondent David Laase, was driving a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe of which they were joint owners. She was stopped and arrested for suspicion of DWI, and the vehicle was seized for forfeiture. She pled guilty to second-degree DWI — refusal to submit to chemical testing. She had one prior impaired-driving conviction. The district court disallowed forfeiture under the innocent-owner defense.

ISSUE

Does Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(d) (2006), authorize forfeiture of a vehicle used by one of its owners to commit a designated offense when a joint owner proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she did not know the vehicle would be used in a manner contrary to law?

ANALYSIS

Statutory construction is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc. v. County of Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 390, 393 (Minn.1998). The application of a statute to the undisputed facts of a case involves a question of law, and the district court’s decision is not binding on this court. O’Malley v. Ulland Bros., 549 N.W.2d 889, 892 (Minn.1996).

The county argues that the vehicle is subject to forfeiture because its driver was convicted of a designated offense while driving it and “[a] vehicle is presumed subject to forfeiture ... if ... the driver is convicted of the designated offense upon which the forfeiture is based.... ” Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(a)(1) (2006). Respondent asserts that the vehicle is not subject to forfeiture because he demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know it would be operated in a manner contrary to law and “[a] motor vehicle is not subject to forfeiture ... if its owner can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the owner did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the vehicle would be used or operated in any manner contrary to law....” Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(d) (2006) (the innocent-owner defense).

No statute addresses the instant situation in which one owner of a jointly owned vehicle subjects the vehicle to forfeiture by driving it in a manner that led to that joint owner’s conviction of a designated offense and the other joint owner challenges forfeiture by showing that he had no knowledge that the vehicle would be driven in a manner contrary to law. The absence of statutory law covering forfeiture in these circumstances creates a case of first impression.

It is well settled that courts may not add to a statute what the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks. Ullom v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 112, 515 N.W.2d 615, 617 (Minn.App.1994); see also Genin v.1996 Mercury Marquis, 622 N.W.2d 114, 119 (Minn.2001) (rejecting construction of statute that would “add words to the statute [because] the rules governing statutory construction forbid that”). The legislature could have restricted application of the innocent-owner defense to forfeiture set out in Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(d), to situations in which the driver of the vehicle was not a joint owner, but it did not do so.

Genin addressed whether, when a vehicle was seized for forfeiture but ultimately returned to its owner, the owner or the seizing authority was responsible for storage fees during the seizure. 622 N.W.2d at 116. The vehicle was seized under Minn.Stat. § 169.1217 (1998), which provided that the owner of a seized vehicle could recover possession of the vehicle before the forfeiture proceeding by posting bond. The owner in Genin did not post bond, and his vehicle was not ultimately forfeited but returned to him. 622 N.W.2d at 116. The statute provided that, if the vehicle was ultimately forfeited, the proceeds could be used to pay its storage expenses, but did not address how those expenses were to be paid if the vehicle was not ultimately forfeited. Id. at 117-18. The supreme court rejected the view that, by not posting bond, the owner had rendered himself liable for the storage fees because it involved amending rather than construing the statute. Id. at 119. Analogously, we cannot amend the innocent-owner defense to exclude its application in situations in which the offending driver is also a joint-owner.

Moreover, “[bjecause of the punitive and disfavored nature of the forfeiture laws, this court is to strictly construe [their] language and resolve any doubt in favor of the party challenging [them].” Schug v. Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Sixteen Dollars & Fifty Gents in U.S. Currency, 669 N.W.2d 379, 382 (Minn.App.2003) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. 16 Dec. 2003). The doubt resulting from the omission of statutory language reconciling Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subds. 6, 7(a)(1) (2006) (requiring forfeiture of a vehicle whose driver is convicted of a designated offense) with Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(d) (disallowing forfeiture of a vehicle whose owner does not know it is being driven in a manner contrary to law) must therefore be resolved in favor of respondent, a joint owner of the vehicle and the party challenging forfeiture. In construing statutes, our objective is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2006). The legislature’s reluctance to impose forfeiture on a vehicle whose owner was not aware of its misuse is evident not only in Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(d) (owner of vehicle whose driver is convicted of designated offense) but also in Minn.Stat. § 609.5312, subd. 2(a) (2006) (owner of property used in transaction of business as a common carrier); Minn.Stat. § 609.5312, subd. 3(b)(2) (2006) (owner of vehicle used in prostitution offense); Minn.Stat. § 609.5312, subd. 4(b)(2) (2006) (owner of vehicle used for fleeing a police officer); and Minn.Stat. § 609.5318, subd. 5(b) (2006) (owner of vehicle used in drive-by shooting). Minn.Stat. §§ 609.531-.5318 “must be liberally construed to carry out [their] ... remedial purposes.... ” Minn. Stat. § 609.531, subd. la (2006). Liberal construction “applies a writing in light of the situation presented and ... tends to effectuate the spirit and purpose of the writing.” Black’s Law Dictionary 308 (7th ed.1999). The purpose of the cited provisions of those statutes is to prevent innocent owners from losing their vehicles through forfeiture. Thus, Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(d), sharing that purpose, should also be liberally construed to prevent respondent, an innocent owner, from losing his vehicle through forfeiture.

Finally, the county argues that returning respondent’s vehicle to him defeats the forfeiture statute’s overall purpose of protecting the public from intoxicated drivers. See Lukkason v.1993 Chevrolet Extended Cab Pickup, 590 N.W.2d 803, 806 (Minn.App.1999) (construing predecessor statute), review denied (Minn. 18 May 1999). But “the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.” State v. Loge, 608 N.W.2d 152, 155 (Minn.2000) (quotation omitted). The law explicitly and repeatedly provides that vehicles used to commit crimes are not subject to forfeiture if their owners did not know of the criminal use. See Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(d); Minn.Stat. § 609.5312, subd. 2(a); Minn.Stat. § 609.5312, subd. 3(b)(2); Minn.Stat. § 609.5312, subd. 4(b)(2); Minn.Stat. § 609.5318, subd. 5(b). We agree with the county that the spirit of Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(a)(1), is protecting the public from vehicles driven by intoxicated drivers, but we cannot ignore the letter of Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(d), precluding forfeiture of the vehicles of innocent owners. Respondent, an innocent joint owner, is entitled to the return of his vehicle.

DECISION

Because Minn.Stat. § 169A.63 (2006), does not authorize forfeiture of a vehicle used by one of its joint owners to commit a designated offense when the other joint owner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know the vehicle would be used in a manner contrary to law, the district court did not err in ordering the return of respondent’s vehicle.

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, Judge

(concurring specially).

I concur in the opinion of the court except insofar as it relies on chapter 609 of the Minnesota Statutes to reason that portions of the forfeiture provisions of chapter 169A should be “liberally construed.” That language derives from chapter 609, in which the legislature stated that the forfeiture provisions in sections 609.531 to 609.5318 “must be liberally construed” to carry out certain remedial purposes. Minn.Stat. § 609.531, subd. la (2006). Sections 609.531 to 609.5318, however, have no application to this case because they relate only to forfeitures based on certain enumerated offenses, but driving while impaired in violation of section 169A.20 is not among them. Minn.Stat. § 609.531, subd. 1(f) (2006). Rather, the county seeks forfeiture based on section 169A.63.

In my view, this case should be decided by relying on the caselaw stating that forfeiture statutes are “disfavored generally” and, accordingly, that we must “strictly construe [the statutory] language and resolve any doubt in favor of the party challenging” the application of such a statute. Riley v.1987 Station Wagon, 650 N.W.2d 441, 443 (Minn.2002); see also Torgelson v. Real Prop. Known as 17138 880th Ave., 749 N.W.2d 24, 26-27 (Minn.2008). It also is appropriate, as the court’s opinion reflects, to follow the analytical approach taken in Genin v.1996 Mercury Marquis, 622 N.W.2d 114, 117-18, 119 (Minn.2001) (noting that contrary interpretation of statute that was “silent as to who bears responsibility for any accrued storage fees when the owner prevails at a forfeiture proceeding” would “encroach upon the legislature’s domain”). Consistent with this caselaw, the court properly interprets section 169A.63 to not permit forfeiture of the Laases’ jointly owned vehicle. In light of the language in subdivision 6, subdivision 7(d), and the third sentence of subdivision 1(h), there is no textual basis for a conclusion that the legislature intended either to permit or to prohibit forfeiture in this situation.

For these reasons, I concur in the opinion of the court.

ROSS, Judge

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. The court’s opinion accurately recognizes the general rule that “[a] vehicle is presumed subject to forfeiture ... if ... the driver is convicted of the designated offense upon which forfeiture is based.” MinmStat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(a)(1) (2006). But based on the proposition that forfeiture laws are tainted with a punitive and disfavored nature, the opinion liberally construes the innocent-owner exception to void the operation of the plainly stated forfeiture rule to resolve what it perceives to be doubt about the application of the exception, ultimately disallowing forfeiture. I do not read the rule and the exception as accommodating any doubt concerning whether a car owned by an offender may be subject to forfeiture under section 169A.63. I believe that the exception does not apply in this situation.

For our purposes, the statutory language stating the rule and then the exception is as follows: “A vehicle is presumed subject to forfeiture under this section if ... the driver is convicted of the designated offense upon which the forfeiture is based.” Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(a)(1). “A motor vehicle is not subject to forfeiture under this section if its owner can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the owner did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the vehicle would be used or operated in any manner contrary to law or that the owner took reasonable steps to prevent use of the vehicle by the offender.” Id., subd. 7(d).

In my view, in context of the entire statute, the innocent-owner exception applies when “the owner,” meaning the only owner or in the case of joint ownership all owners, prove by clear and convincing evidence that “the owner” did not know that the vehicle would be used contrary to law or that “the owner” took reasonable steps to prevent use by “the offender.” It is plain to me for two reasons that the legislature did not draft the innocent-owner exception to apply in cases such as this, when “the offender” jointly owns the vehicle with a nonoffending spouse or family member.

First, the literal reading of the exception supports this conclusion. The subdivision 7(d) operative language regards “the owner” and “the offender” clearly as separate persons or classes of persons. Following the legislative directive to apply the plain language to construe unambiguous provisions of its statutes, Minn.Stat. § 645.08 (2006), I would urge that we take the most logical reading of the exception at face value. This leads me to conclude that it applies only when the owner, or in the case of multiple owners, all owners, prove a lack of knowledge of the offender’s illegal use. My reading is buttressed by the legislature’s guidance explaining that when construing statutes, “the singular includes the plural.” Id. The exception’s singular reference to “the owner” therefore must refer to all owners where, as here, there is more than one owner. And this conclusion finds further support in the next sentence of the subdivision. That sentence specifically addresses the situation in which “the offender” is “a family or household member of the owner,” indicating again that the legislature did not intend for the exception to apply unless the offender is neither the single owner nor among the class of plural owners. Here, all owners cannot establish lack of knowledge by clear and convincing evidence, since one of them is “the offender.”

Second, the legislature knew how to, easily could have, but chose not to, use simple language that applies the exception in situations when the vehicle is owned jointly by two or more people, one of whom is the offender, as in the present case. When the legislature defined the term “owner” as applied to section 169A.63, it prescribed that the term means “a person” entitled to use the vehicle, including certain lessees, and it explained that “a person registered as the owner” is presumptively “the owner.” Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 1(h) (2006). In that same definition, the legislature specifically declared the ownership interest of a vehicle that “is owned jointly by two or more people.” Id. This informs us that the legislature knew how linguistically to address joint ownership situations. I do not think we can overlook that the legislature chose not to use this simple language addressing jointly owned vehicles just six subdivisions later in the same section when setting forth the forfeiture exception as applying to “the owner” in contrast with “the offender.” I add that the legislature was also obviously mindful of competing ownership interests when it enacted the subdivision. Subdivision 7’s second and third paragraphs address forfeiture of seized vehicles that are subject to a lease or to a perfected security interest. Id., subd. 7(b), (c) (2006). In similar fashion, it could have imposed forfeiture limits, including the innocent-owner exception, in cases of jointly owned vehicles. It did not.

I agree with the concurring opinion that forfeiture provisions ought to be strictly construed. But strict construction of “disfavored” forfeiture laws nevertheless allow forfeiture when the forfeiture falls “within both letter and spirit of the law.” Schug v. Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Sixteen Dollars and Fifty Cents in U.S. Currency, 669 N.W.2d 379, 382 (Minn.App.2003) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec. 16, 2003). The court’s opinion dismisses the county’s argument by treating it as relying on the spirit rather than the letter of the law. While we certainly ought not to disregard the letter in search of the spirit, Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2006), I construe the letter plainly to presume forfeiture and to make exceptions only as plainly articulated in subdivision 7(d).

My dissent depends on a literal construction of the statute; I would not presume that the legislature intended the exception to apply beyond the language of that section in joint ownership cases, especially when it imbedded the exception in a provision that makes sense only when the offender is a nonowner. I add that although I see no ambiguity, if there is any ambiguity in the statute, it lies only in the exception (subdivision 7(d)), not in the rule (subdivision 7(a)). Under a straightforward textual review, the rule expressly and plainly authorizes vehicle forfeiture with the implied presumption either that the offender is the owner or that the owner consents to the offender’s illegal use. There is no ambiguity to be found here. The exception, which is where both the majority and concurring opinions suggest an ambiguity, exists only in the context of the rule. If the exception is indeed ambiguous, it is not our prerogative to apply it any more broadly than its strictest interpretation would allow.

In this case, Ms. Laase was “the offender.” For that reason, I would apply the statute expressly and hold that the exception does not apply to prevent forfeiture of the vehicle that she owned and operated while impaired. I would therefore reverse.

       Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const, art. VI, § 10.

      . The district court ruled from the bench and found that respondent "did not know that [his wife] consumed any alcohol ... [or] that her intent was to consume alcohol.... [Respondent] by clear and convincing evidence has shown that he had no knowledge of alcohol consumption, intent to consume alcohol, [or] intent to violate [a] Minnesota Statute by driving under the influence.... ”

      . The only statutory provision concerning vehicles with joint owners is Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 1(h) (2006), providing that "if a motor vehicle is owned jointly by two or more people, each owner's interest extends to the whole of the vehicle and is not subject to apportionment." Because neither party suggested apportionment, this provision is not relevant here.

      . Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(d), also provides that, "[i]f the offender [convicted of a designated offense committed while driving the vehicle] is a family or household member of the owner and has three or more prior impaired driving convictions, the owner is presumed to know of any vehicle use by the offender that is contrary to law.” The legislature intended to limit the innocent-owner defense for vehicle owners whose families or households include members with three or more impaired driving convictions by requiring these owners to rebut a presumption that they knew the vehicle would be used by their family or household members in a manner contrary to law. This limitation on the innocent-owner defense does not apply to respondent, however, because his wife had only one prior impaired driving conviction.