Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. MacK, 292 N.W.2d 764.
- State v. Bauer 512 N.W.2d 112 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
- State v. Alt 504 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
- State v. Alt 504 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
- State v. Jobe 486 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1992
-
State v. Jobe
486 N.W.2d 407
Minn. 1992
This court has restated that test to require that “experts in the field widely share the view that the results [of scientific testing] are scientifically reliable as accurate.”
- State v. Kraushaar 470 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1991
-
State v. Kraushaar
470 N.W.2d 509
Minn. 1991
-68 (Minn.1980) (citing Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923)).
- State v. Kraushaar 459 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-
State v. Kraushaar
459 N.W.2d 346
Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The test developed in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923) governs the admissibility of novel scientific evidence.
- State v. Grimmett 459 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- State v. Grimmett 459 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
- State v. Schwartz 447 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1989
-
State v. Fenney
448 N.W.2d 54
Minn. 1989
Minnesota has adopted the Frye rule, which requires that “ ‘the thing from which the [expert testimony] deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.’ ” (quoting Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923)).
- State v. Schwartz 447 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1989
- Sanders v. State 400 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
Sanders v. State
400 N.W.2d 175
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-14 (Minn.1984); -31 (Minn.1982)
- State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
- State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
- State v. Jahnke 353 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
State v. Jahnke
353 N.W.2d 606
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Appellants contend the improper reference to the polygraph test constituted blatant prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecutor knew this was an inadmissible matter, -68 (Minn.1980), and should not have asked the question in the presence of the jury.
- State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
- State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
- Rodriguez v. State 345 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
Rodriguez v. State
345 N.W.2d 781
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The hypnosis was conducted by a , 771 n. 14 (Minn.1980).
- In re the Welfare of J.R.D. 342 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- Matter of JRD 342 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
Matter of JRD
342 N.W.2d 162
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
contends that the use of hypnosis in criminal proceedings in Minnesota is extremely limited because of the impact of three Minnesota cases:
-
In re the Welfare of J.R.D.
342 N.W.2d 162
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
contends that the use of hypnosis in criminal proceedings in Minnesota is extremely limited because of the impact of three Minnesota cases:
- State v. Saldana 324 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1982
-
State v. Saldana
324 N.W.2d 227
Minn. 1982
Compare other cases in which expert testimony is excluded as scientifically inaccurate and unreliable, (hypnotically induced testimony); (polygraph test results).
- State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 644 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1982
- State v. Blanchard 315 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1982
-
State v. Blanchard
315 N.W.2d 427
Minn. 1982
after considering the testimony of five expert witnesses, we held that testimony of a “previously hypnotized witness concerning the subject matter adduced at the pretrial hypnotic interview may not be admitted in a criminal proceeding.” Id.
- State v. Koehler 312 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1981
-
State v. Koehler
312 N.W.2d 108
Minn. 1981
2 we recognized the “historical unreliability” of hypnosis and held that testimony of a “previously hypnotized witness concerning the subject matter adduced at the pretrial hypnotic interview may not be admitted in a criminal proceeding.” Id.
- State v. Posten 302 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1981