We begin by noting that before appellant can challenge the constitutionality of a statute, he must notify the attorney general. Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 144; Waldner v. Peterson, 447 N.W.2d 217, 219 (Minn.App. 1989). Because appellant has failed to notify the attorney general of his challenge, we need address only the constitutionality of the statute as applied.
This court will review only those claimed errors specifically alleged in the motion for new trial. Schaustv. Town Board of Hollywood Township, 295 Minn. 571, 572, 204 N.W.2d 646, 648 (1973); Waldner v. Peterson, 447 N.W.2d 217, 219 (Minn.App. 1989). The motion for new trial must be specific enough to identify the alleged errors and allow the trial court to correct them. Waldner, 447 N.W.2d at 219.
That protection order was issued by Judge Paulson against Strankowski shortly after he had severely beaten Vicki. Vicki argues that under Rule 59(b), NDRCivP, she should be granted a new hearing due to the trial court's prejudice against Strankowski. The purpose of a motion for a new trial is to give the trial court an opportunity to correct errors without subjecting the parties and the appellate courts to the time and expense involved in an appeal. Waldner v. Peterson, 447 N.W.2d 217 (Minn. App. 1989). Vicki never made a motion for a new trial, however, nor did she move for relief from the judgment, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(vi), NDRCivP. Vicki made no demand for a change of judge, pursuant to NDCC § 29-15-21, until this case was already on appeal to this court.
In an appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial, we review only those matters specifically alleged in the motion to constitute error. Waldner v. Peterson, 447 N.W.2d 217, 219 (Minn. App. 1989). We will affirm the district court's denial of a motion for a new trial when a party merely asserts a basis for granting the motion without adequately identifying the alleged errors.
"On appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial, only those matters specifically alleged in the motion to constitute error may be reviewed." Waldner v. Peterson, 447 N.W.2d 217, 219 (Minn.App. 1989). The purpose of a motion for a new trial is to allow the trial court an "opportunity to correct its own errors without subjecting the parties and the appellate courts to the time, expense and inconvenience involved in an appeal."
Our review focuses on the information available to the court at that time and does not consider the jury verdict delivered more than one year later. Waldner v. Peterson, 447 N.W.2d 217, 219 (Minn.App. 1989) (citation omitted). As of May 2003, fact issues existed as to whether the statute of limitations applied to bar appellants' claims.
Siegler v. Conner, 396 N.W.2d 612, 616 (Minn.App. 1986) (stating that appellate court defers to district court's exercise of authority on new trial motion, as district court has feel for trial). Appellant, however, fails to specify the grounds for his new trial motion. See Waldner v. Peterson, 447 N.W.2d 217, 219 (Minn.App. 1989) (holding that new trial motion that fails to identify specific grounds must be affirmed on appeal). Even if we liberally construe appellant's motion as raising specific grounds, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying him a new trial.
Because appellant failed to raise or articulate any constitutional issue in the district court and failed to properly and timely notify the attorney general that he was challenging the constitutionality of the statute in the district court or on appeal, he waived his right to raise the constitutional issue in Granville on this appeal. Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.04; Minn. R. App. P. 144; Waldner v. Peterson, 447 N.W.2d 217 (Minn.App. 1989) (no consideration of constitutional issue when not passed on by district court and no notice given to attorney general under rule 144); Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that issues not argued and considered by district court will not be considered on appeal).
Therefore, the motion for a new trial must be denied on that basis." See Waldner v. Peterson, 447 N.W.2d 217, 219 (Minn.App. 1989). The court nonetheless reviewed the record and concluded that "no errors occurred during the conduct of the trial, which were unreasonably prejudicial to [appellant]."
This court's review is limited to issues that the record indicates were actually raised to, and decided by, the district court. Waldner v. Peterson, 447 N.W.2d 217, 219 (Minn.App. 1989). But we have the authority to consider the issues in the interests of justice, and we choose to do so here.