Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ellert, 301 N.W.2d 320.

21 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, (stating that a police officer’s testimony that he had “no doubt” that a witness made a truthful statement raised concerns about vouching); (holding that district court erroneously admitted police officer’s opinion testimony that defendant lied when making her statement).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Ferguson, d at 835; (concluding it was improper to admit a police officer’s testimony that he was certain he was taking a truthful statement, but also finding no prejudice because other evidence revealed the opi nion on truthfulness was little more than corroborative ); (holding the district court erroneously admitted a police officer’s testimony that he believed the defendant lied when making her statement to the police).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Similarly, the supreme court held that the district court erred by admitting a police officer’s testimony that the defendant lied when she gave an exculpatory statement.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
And in State v. Ellert , the district court erred by ad mitting a police officer’s testimony that the defendant lied when he gave an exculpatory statement.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Ellert , (holding that the district court abused its discre tion by admitting testimony from a police officer opining that the defendant lied to him).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, e.g., State v. 6 Ellert, (holding that officer’s testimony that he believed defendant lied in statement to him was improper); d 625, 630 (Minn. 1995) (recognizing that officer’s testimony that confession appeared “truthful” was problematic).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
For example, in State v. Koskela, we stated that it was troubling for a police officer to state “I had no doubt whatsoever that I was taking a truthful statement.” Id.; (holding that it was error to admit police testimony that defendant was lying when she made her statement to the police).
State v. Koskela 536 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1995
State v. Koskela 536 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1995
this court held that it was error for the trial court to permit a police officer to testify that, in his opinion, defendant lied when telling him that the shooting was accidental, but that under the circumstances the error was harmless.
State v. Henriksen 522 N.W.2d 928 Minn. 1994
State v. Henriksen 522 N.W.2d 928 Minn. 1994
Cf., (refusing to award new trial where it was clear that a new trial would accomplish nothing) (same).
State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1985
State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1985
(affirming an assault conviction in a case in which the victim testified at trial as a witness for the defense rather than for the state).
State v. Rud 359 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1984
State v. Rud 359 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1984
(affirming an assault conviction in a case in which the victim testified at trial as a witness for the defense rather than for the state).
State v. Love 350 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1984
State v. Love 350 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1984
On the general subject of admitting opinion evidence as to whether or not a defendant or a complainant or other witness is or was lying
State v. Brown 348 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1984
State v. Brown 348 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1984
We addressed a : Defense counsel did object to some of the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the victim concerning telephone conversations which the prosecutor had with the victim not long after the shooting, the objection being that the prosecutor, because he was the prosecutor, could not testify concerning these co