This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A16-0906 State of Minnesota, Respondent, Ramsey County, Respondent, City of St. Paul,

Respondent,

vs. R. M. W., Appellant. Filed December 27, 2016 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded Stauber, Judge Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CR-14-3978 Lori Swanson, Attorney Gene ral, St. Paul, Minnesota; and John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Laura Rosenthal, Assistant County Attorney, Michelle Johnson, Certifie d Student Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Samuel J. Clark, St. Paul City Attorn ey, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondents) Meghan R. Scully, Stephen Dekovich, Char les H. Thomas, Law Offices of Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, In c., St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant) Considered and decided by Stauber, Presid ing Judge; Worke, Judge; and Bratvold, Judge.2 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N STAUBER , Judge On appeal from an order denying his petition to expunge records after he was acquitted of first-degree crimin al sexual conduct, appellant argues that (1) the district court erred by considering the 12 factors set forth in Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c) (2014), in determining whether to grant th e expungement petition and (2) even if the district court properly considered those 12 fa ctors, the court’s application of the factors was an abuse of discretion. Because th e plain language of the statute requires consideration of the 12 factors, we affirm the district court’ s decision to consider them. But because the district court abused its disc retion by improperly applying the factors in a manner that assumes appellant’s guilt when, in fact, appellant was acquitted of the charged offense, we reverse a nd remand for reconsideration of the 12 factors contained in section 609A.03, subdivision 5(c). FACTS Appellant R.M.W. is a di sabled veteran who, in 2014, lived in a subsidized apartment that is owned and op erated by the St. Paul Public Housing Agency (PHA). In June 2014, appellant R.M.W. wa s charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(e)(1)(i), (2012) —using force or coercion to accomplish sexual penetration and causing injury. The compla int alleged that appellant, along with another person, were at the apartment of the alleged victim, a nd that the trio were drinking. The complaint also alleged that after the third pe rson left the apartment, appellant “held [the alleged victim] down, bent her over a recliner in the living r oom, pulled down her3 clothes, and forced her to ha ve vaginal intercourse with him.” The complaint further alleged that “[d] uring the assault, blood ran down [the alleged victim’s] leg into her underwear, which w[ere] around her ankles.” According to the alleged vi ctim, she “felt constant pain in her vaginal area and stomach” as a result of the assault. Appellant admitting having intercourse with the alleged vi ctim, but claimed that the sex was consensual. In light of the alleged se xual assault, PHA filed an unl awful-detainer action against appellant on June 23, 2014, seeking to evict him from his subsid ized apartment. The unlawful-detainer action was then stayed pendi ng the outcome of the criminal case. The criminal case was resolved in September 2014, when a jury acqui tted appellant of the firstdegree criminal-sexual-conduct charge. In December 2014, appellant and PHA reachedan agreement to settle the unlawfuldetainer action. Under the terms of the agr eement, appellant agreednot to contest the termination of his te nancy, and to vacate his apartment by the end of Ma rch 2015. Conversely, PHA agreed to “p rovide a neutral hous ing reference in re sponse to future inquiries regarding [a ppellant’s] rental hi story with PHA.” On October 28, 2015, appellant filed a peti tion to expunge the reco rds relating to the first-degree criminal-sexual-c onduct charge. Appellant clai med that he was “seeking an expungement because alt hough [he] was found not guilty” of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, he lost his “subsidi zed housing and ha[s] since str uggled to find new affordable housing.” Responde nts Ramsey County, Minnesota Depart ment of Health and Department of Human Services, and the City of St. Paul, opposed appellant’s pe tition.4 A hearing was held on ap pellant’s expungement petition in January 2016, at which the alleged victim appeared and objected to appellant’s request for expungement. Following the hearing, the distri ct court concluded that because a jury found appellant not guilty of the first- degree criminal-sexual-c onduct charge, the matter was determined in his favor. Thus, th e district court found th at appellant was “presu mptively entitled to expungement” under Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(1) (2014). The district court then found that the burden of persuasion shifts to the parties opposing th e petition, and that “based on an analysis of the reason for [appell ant’s] request and the facts applicable” to the 12 factors set forth in Minn. Stat § 609A.03, subd. 5(c), “t here is clear and convincing evidence that the public’s in terest in keepi ng the records unseal ed outweighs the disadvantages to [appellant] in not sealing the records. ” Therefore, the district court denied appellant’s petition. This appeal followed. D E C I S I O N Appellant challenges the district c ourt’s decision to deny his petition for expungement. He argues that the district court erred by considering the 12 factors set forth in Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c). Appellant argues further that even if the district court was required to consider the1 2 factors, the court’s application of those factors was an abuse of discretion. This court reviews a district court’s exp ungement decision for abuse of discretion.
State v. M.D.T. , 831 N.W.2d 276, 279 (Minn. 2013 ). “Under an abuse of discretion standard, we will not overrule the district c ourt unless the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner or based its ruling on an erroneous interpretation of the5 law.” State v. R.H.B. , 821 N.W.2d 817, 822 (Minn. 2012). We review a district court’s findings of fact supporting e xpungement for clear error. State v. A.S.E. , 835 N.W.2d 513, 517 (Minn. App. 2013). But the “interpreta tion of the expungement statute is a legal question subject to de novo review.” State v. D.R.F. , 878 N.W.2d 33, 35 (Minn. App. 2016) (quotation omitted). A. Applicability of the 12 factors contained in Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c) Minnesota Statutes chapter 609A prov ides the grounds and procedures for expungement of criminal records. Minn. Stat. § 609A.01 (2014). This chapter provides that “[a] petition may be filed under section 609A.03 to seal all records relating to an arrest, indictment or information, trial, or verdict . . . if . . . all pending actions or proceedings were resolved in favor of th e petitioner.” Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(1) (2014). A jury verdict of “not guilty ” is a resolution “in favor of” the petitioner. State v. Ambaye , 616 N.W.2d 256, 259 (Minn. 2000). If a petition to seal the record has been filed under Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(1), “the court shall grant the petition . . . unless the agency or jurisdiction whose records would be affected establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the inte rests of the public and public safety outweigh the disadvantages to the petitioner of not sealing the record.” Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(b) (2014). The Minnesota Supreme Court explained th at when Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subds. 3(a)(1) and (2), are read together with Minn . Stat. § 609A.03, subd . 5(b), they create a “two-step procedure for statutory expungement.” R.H.B. , 821 N.W.2d at 821. Under6 step one, if all pending criminal actions or proceedings have been resolved “in favor of” an individual, he may petition the district court to seal the records related to the action or proceeding, and there is a statutory presumption that the court will grant the petition. Id. Once a petitioner meets the legal threshold set forth in section 609A. 02, subd. 3(a)(1), or (2), he is “presumptively entitled to expungement.” Id. (quotations omitted). But the statutory presumption is not absolute; rather “it is a rebuttable statutory presumption that shifts the burden of persuasi on to the opposing party.” Id. (quotations omitted). Under the second step, the ag ency or jurisdiction holding the record may prevent expungement if it satisfies its burden of persuasion set fo rth in section 609A.03, subdivision 5(b). Id. In 2014, the legislature amended Minn. St at. § 609A.03, subd. 5, to add 12 factors for the district court to consider “[i]n maki ng a determination under th[at] subdivision.” 2014 Minn. Laws ch. 246, § 10, at 815-16. These factors include: (1) the nature and severity of the underlying crime, the record of which would be sealed; (2) the risk, if any, the petiti oner poses to individuals or society; (3) the length of time si nce the crime occurred; (4) the steps taken by the petitioner toward rehabilitation following the crime; (5) aggravating or mitigating factors relating to the underlying crime, includin g the petitioner’s level of participation and context and ci rcumstances of the underlying crime; (6) the reasons for the ex pungement, including the petitioner’s attempts to obtain employment, housing, or other necessities; (7) the petitioner’s criminal record; (8) the petitioner’s record of employment and community involvement; (9) the recommendations of interested law enforcement, prosecutorial, and corrections officials;7 (10) the recommendations of vi ctims or whether victims of the underlying crime were minors; (11 the amount, if any, of restitution outstanding, past efforts made by the petitione r toward payment, and the measures in place to help en sure completion of restitution payment after expungement of the record if granted; and (12) other factors deemed relevant by the court. Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c). Here, the district court considered the 12 factors contained in Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c), in concluding that res pondents met their burden of persuasion that the interests of the public and public safety outweigh the disadvantages to appellant of not sealing his record. Appellant contends that this decision is erroneous. He argues that because he was acquitted of the first-degree criminal-sexual-conduct charge, his “petition falls solely within the scope of Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, su bd. 5(b).” Thus, appellant argues that the district court e rred by applying the 12 factors set forth in section 609A.03, subdivision 5(c). Appellant’s argument raises questions about how the expung ement statute is interpreted. “Statutory interp retation is a question of law th at is reviewed de novo.” In re Welfare of J.T.L. , 875 N.W.2d 334, 336 (Minn. App. 2015). The object of statutory interpretation “is to ascertain and effectuate th e intention of the legislature.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014). “In interpre ting statutory language, words and phrases are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” J.T.L. , 875 N.W.2d at 336. “When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregar ded under the pretext of pursui ng the spirit.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16.8 We conclude that based upon the plain language of the applicable expungement statutes, the district court was required to ap ply the 12 factors set forth in Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c). Subdivision 5 of sect ion 609A.03 consists of several paragraphs, with paragraphs (a) and (b) establishing the burd ens to be satisfied in expungement cases. Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5. Paragr aph (a) of subdivis ion 5 provides: Except as otherwise provided by paragraph (b), expungement of a criminal recordis an extraordinary remedy to be granted only upon clear and convincing evidence that it would yield a benefit to the petitioner commensurate with the disadvantages to the public and public safety of: (1) sealing the record; and (2) burdening the court and public authorities to issue, enforce, and mon itor an expungement order. Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(a). In contrast to paragraph (a), paragra ph (b) of subdivisi on 5 applies to the expungement of criminal records when a case has been resolv ed in the petitioner’s favor. Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(b). Sp ecifically, that paragraph provides: Except as otherwise provided by this paragraph, if the petitioner is petitioning for the se aling of a criminal record under section 609A.02, subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (1) or (2), the court shall grant the pe tition to seal the record unless the agency or jurisdiction whos e records would be affected establishes by clear and convincin g evidence that the interests of public and public safety out weigh the disadvantages to the petitioner of not sealing the record. Id. Finally, paragraph (c) of subdivision 5 states: “In making a determination under this subdivision, the court shall consider [the following 12 factors].” Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c). This language is clear and unambiguous. The language “this9 subdivision” is a clear reference to subdivisi on 5, meaning paragraph (c) is applicable to both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Thus, under the plain la nguage of paragraph (c) of subdivision 5, the district court is to consid er the 12 factors set forth in that paragraph “[i]n making a determination” of whether th e burden of persuasion has been satisfied under either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of that subdivision. And the use of the word “shall” in Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c ), means that the consideration of the 12 factors is mandatory. See Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 16, (2 014) (providing that “‘[s]hall’ is mandatory”). Appellant argues that the 12 factors set forth in section 609A.03, subdivision 5(c), only apply to section 609A.03, subdivision 5(a). To support his claim, appellant relies on the language “[e]xcept as otherwise provid ed by paragraph (b),” which appears at the beginning of paragraph (a). See Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(a). Appellant argues that the 12 factors set forth in paragraph 5(c) apply to paragraph 5(a), but the language “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by paragrap h (b)” demonstrates that the language of paragraph 5(b)—instead of paragraph 5(a)—applies to any expungement petition authorized to be brought by the terms of Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(1) or (2). Appellant’s argument misconstrues th e “[e]xcept as otherwise” language contained in subdivision 5(a). As this court has recognized, Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subds. 5(a) and (b), are “complementar y and must be read together.” State v. L.W.J. , 717 N.W.22d 451, 456 (Minn. App. 2006). The “[ e]xcept as otherwise provided in paragraph (b)” language demonstrates the two different burdens contained in subdivision 5(a) and subdivision 5(b). Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(a), st ates that “[e]xcept as otherwise10 provided in paragraph (b),” if a petitioner ha s not established a resolution of proceedings in his favor, he has the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that expungement of his criminal records “w ould yield a benefit to the petitioner commensurate with the disadvantages to the public and public safety.” (Emphasis added.) Paragraph (b) is diffe rent from paragraph (a) becaus e if a petitioner establishes a resolution of proceed ings in his favor, the burden shifts to the “agency or jurisdiction whose records would be affected” by the expungement to establish “by clear and convincing evidence that the interest of the public and public safety outweigh the disadvantages to the petitioner of not sealing the record.” Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(b) (emphasis added). Thus, “ [w]hen read together, it is clear that subdivision 5(a) limits the application of subd ivision 5(b) to petitions fo r expungement that involve proceedings resolved in favor of the petitioner.” L.W.J. , 717 N.W.2d at 456. Moreover, appellant’s argument ignores th e language of subdivision 5(c), which states that “[i]n making a determination under this subdivision, the court shall consider” the 12 factors listed in that paragraph. Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd . 5(c). As stated above, this language unambigu ously applies to both paragrap hs (a) and (b) of subdivision 5. If the legislature had intended for paragr aph 5(c) to apply only to paragraph 5(a), it surely would have included language st ating “[i]n making a determination under subdivision 5(a)” rather than “[i]n making a determination under this subdivision.” See Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c). It did not. It is well settled that we may not supply statutory language that may have been intentionally or inadvertently omitted by the legislature. See Great River Energy v. Swedzinski , 860 N.W.2d 362, 364 (Minn. 2015);11 see also State v. Hulst , 510 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1994). Therefore, the district court did not err by applying the 12 factors set forth in Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c). B. Application of the 12 factors Appellant argues that even if the districtcourt was required to consider the 12 factors contained in Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c), the court’s application of those factors to the facts of his case was an abuse of discretion. Specifically, appellant challenges the district court’s findings with respect to the sixth factor, arguing that the district court abused its discretion “in fi nding that the reason expungement was sought did not weigh in favor of [appellant].” Appellant also challenges the district court’s findings as they relate to the factors thatcontemplate the “crime ” or the “underlying crime.” 1. Factor six The sixth factor listed in Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c), requires the district court to consider “the reasons for expunge ment, including the petitioner’s attempts to obtain employment, housi ng, or other necessities.” Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c)(6). With respect to this facto r, the district court found: [Appellant] seeks this expu ngement primarily due to a housing hardship. However, [appellant] misrepresents this alleged hardship. [Appella nt] states he’s requesting expungement because he lost his subsidized housing as a result of a criminal sexual conduct charge and has struggled to find new affordable housing. [Appe llant] vacated his subsidized housing based on his own agr eement which was documented in the court settlement and vacate agreement he signed in Court File: 62-HG-CV-14-1673. In addition, [appellant] argues he was denied public housing, but he was successful on appeal and is currently on a waiting lis t. In addition, [appellant]12 currently does have housing. Th is factor is at best neutral, however [appellant’s] misrepre sentation of the facts is concerning. Appellant argues that the district court’s findings with respect to the sixth factor are clearly erroneous because “it was the criminal charge that led directly to [his] choice either to be evicted or voluntarily vacate.” He further claims that the evidence demonstrates that “[d]espite being acquitted by a jury, [his] arrest and the charge brought against him presented barriers to finding stable housing that is affordable to him on his limited financial basis.” Thus, appellant ar gues that the district court abused its discretion by finding that the sixth factor did not weigh in his favor. We disagree. It is the district cour t’s prerogative to weigh evidence and make credibility determinations. See DeMars v. State , 352 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn. 1984) (stating that it is district court’s role to weigh conflicting testim ony and assess witness credibility). The district court acknowledged a ppellant’s claimed hardship, but found that appellant “misrepresent[ed] [his ] alleged hardship.” The district court apparently based this conclusion on the fact that appellant voluntarily settled the unlawful-detainer action with the PHC and “currently” has housing. Th ese findings are supported by the record. As was within its discretion, the district c ourt weighed this evidence and concluded that the sixth factor was “at best neutral.” It is not our role to reweigh the evidence presented to the district court. Vangsness v. Vangsness , 607 N.W.2d 468, 475 (Minn. App. 2000). An appellate court’s “duty is performed when [it] consider[s] all the evidence . . . and determine[s] [whether] it reasonably supports the [district court’s] findings.” Wilson v. Moline , 234 Minn. 174, 182, 47 N.W. 2d 865, 870 (1951). Thus , although we may have13 found that the sixth factor weighs in favor of appellant, the district court’s determination in this case does not rise to the le vel of an abuse of discretion. Vangsness , 607 N.W.2d at 474 (“That the record might support findings other than those made by the [district] court does not show that the court’s findings are defective.”); see Elliott v. Mitchell , 311 Minn. 533, 535, 249 N.W.2d 172, 174 (1976) (affirming findings, but noting that evidence might have supported another conclusion); Zander v. Zander , 720 N.W.2d 360, 368 (Minn. App. 2006) (observing that, while the record could support a different decision, “this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the district court”), review denied (Minn. Nov. 14, 2006). 2. Factors contemplating the “crime” or “underlying crime” Appellant also challenges the district cour t’s application of several of the factors that refer to the “crime” or the “underlying crime.” He claims that the district court applied these factors “in a manner that assume s criminal culpability when [appellant] was acquitted by a jury.” Thus, appellant argues thatthe district court abused its discretion in weighing the 12 factors because the court “selectively and arbitrarily failed to give deference to the jury’s not guilty verdict.” The first factor contained in Minn. St at. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c), refers to the “nature and severity of the underlying crime.” The district court found that this factor “weighs in favor of the interests of the pub lic and public safety because appellant was charged with first-degree crimin al sexual conduct, a “serious felony offense.” In making this finding, the district court noted that ap pellant “presented a consent defense and was acquitted,” but he “did not deny that sexual pe netration occurred, rather the state failed to14 prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [appella nt] used force or coercion to accomplish the penetration.” The second factor requires the district court to consider “the risk, if any, the petitioner poses to individuals or society.” Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c)(2). The district court addressed this factor as follows: [Respondents] argue[] that [appellant] poses a risk to public safety in that [appellant ] intentionally selected this victim due to her age and vuln erability. In arguing against expungement, the victim stated that she felt preyed upon because she was trusting yet vuln erable to [appellant]. This factor weighs in favor of the interests of public safety. In addressing the third factor, which co ntemplates the amount of time since the crime occurred, the district c ourt found that because the “l ength of time since the crime occurred [was] short,” that factor weighed in favor of respondents. Similarly, with respect to factor five, which contemplates “aggravating or mitigati ng factors relating to the underlying crime, including the petitioner’s level of participation and context and circumstances of the underlying crime,” Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c)(5), the district court found: It does not appear there are any mitigating factors relating to the underlying crim e. However, the context and [appellant’s] level of participati on weigh in favor of the public and public safety. In this case the victim . . . stated she felt preyed upon. She was trusting of [appellant] yet is elderly and vulnerable. This offense took place in the vict im’s home while [appellant] was there as a guest. Th is factor weighs in favor of the public and public safety.15 Finally, factor ten requires the district c ourt to consider “the recommendations of the victims.” Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c)(10). In consider ing this factor, the district court found: At the expungement hearing on January 6, 2016, the victim read a prepared statement. It was clear from her presentation however that she was nervous and afraid and this incident had a significant impact on her. In her prepared statement, she objects to any expungement. However, her physical appearance at the hearing also spoke volumes regarding the negative impact this incident had on her. This factor weighs in favor of the public and public safety. Respondents claim thatfactors relating to the unde rlying charged offense should be considered because “just because a charge was acquitte d does not mean it did not occur; rather the State failed to meet its bur den in proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.” Respondents seem to take the position that, although the state failed to meet its burden of beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, the district court is allowed to re -weigh the evidence at the expungement hearing and determine if ther e is clear and convincing evidence that a crime occurred and weigh the applicable factors accordingly because the clear-andconvincing standard is the standard set forth in section 609A.03, subdivision 5. But this argument essentially allows the state two b ites at the apple. Moreover, respondents’ argument flies in the face of th e jury’s verdict because the ju ry specifically found that a crime did not occur. Appellant was innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The state failed to m eet its burden. To accept the state’s argument that appellant is now somehow guilty of that offense seems to turn one of the fundamental principles of our justice system on its head. See In re Winship , 397 U.S. 358, 363, 90 S. Ct. 1068,16 1072 (1970) (stating that the presumption of innocence is “that bedrock ‘axiomatic and elementary’ principle whose ‘enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law,’” and the reasonable d oubt standard of proof “provides concrete substance” for the presum ption of innocence). In addition, the evidence presented at th e expungement hearing did not consist of the evidence presented at appellant’s criminal trial. As a result, under the respondents’ argument, the district court was allowed to determine whether there was clear and convincing evidence of appellant ’s guilt based solely on the a llegations in the complaint and the alleged victim’s stat ement at the expungement hear ing that the incident had a significant impact on her. In fact, aside fro m the evidence pertaini ng to appellant’s housing situation, the only other evidence in the record is the jury ’s verdict that the allegations in the complaint we re not proven. Consequently, the district court’s findings with respect to the factors considering the “crime” or “underlying crime” are clearly erroneous because they are not supported by th e record. For example, the district court found that the “length of time since the crime occurred is short.” (Emphasis added.) But because the jury found that no crime actually occurred, this finding is not supported by the record. Moreover, and more importantly, the district court made several findings that characterize appellant’s conduct as criminal, su ch as: (1) appellant “intentionally selected this victim due to her age and vulnerability”; (2) appellant’s “lev el of participation” in the crime; (3) the alleged victim was “elderly and vulnerable” 1 ; and (4) the “ offense took

1 The record reflects that at the time of the offense, the alleged victim was 57 and appellant was 66. Yet despite being only 57, and almost ten years younger than17 place in the victim’s home.” (Emphasis adde d.) Appellant, however, presented a consent defense at trial and the jury acquitted appella nt of the charged offense. Because the record reflects that appellant was acquitted of the charged offense, appellant engaged in no criminal behavior, and there was no vic tim. As a result, these findings are not supported by the record. Furthermore, the dist rict court made several findings that accept the alleged victim’s version of the incident, su ch as: (1) the alleged victim “stated that she felt preyed upon b ecause she was trusting yet vulnerable to [appellant]; (2) “[i]t was clear” from the alleged victim’s presentation at the evidentiary hearing that “she was nervous and afraid and this incident had a significant impact on her”; and (3) the alleged victim’s “physical appearance at the hearin g also spoke volumes regarding the negative impact this incident had on her.” To the extent that these findings portray appellant’s conduct as criminal and the alleged victim as , in fact, an actual victim, they are not supported by the record. In sum, because appellant was acquitted of the charged offense, the district court made findings that are unsupported by th e record as they apply to appellant’s involvement in the allege d offense. As a result, the distri ct court abused its discretion by applying the 12 factors set forth in Minn. St at. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c) in a light that

appellant, the district court characterized th e victim as “elderly and vulnerable.” The common dictionary definition of “elderly ” is “somewhat old; near old age.” Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary 627 (2d ed. 1987). A person 57 years of age would generally not be consider ed “somewhat old” or “near old age.” Moreover, there is nothing in the record suggesti ng that the alleged victim was vulnerable. Therefore, the district court’s finding that the alleged victim was “elder ly and vulnerable” is not supported by the record.18 assumes guilt of the charged offe nse. Accordingly, we revers e and remand for the district court to consider the 12 factors in a manner c onsistent with the jury’s verdict of not guilty and the holding of this court. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.