Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Helterbridle, 301 N.W.2d 545.

130 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Steven Allen Hart Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We have said that an expert opinion will not assist the trier of fact when “[T]he subject of the testimony is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury and the testimony of the expert will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions about that subject which is within [the jury’s] experience.”
State of Minnesota v. Brenda Marie Tucker (A22-0966), and Brenda Marie Tucker (A22-0979), vs. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin Minn. Ct. App. 2023
702, and whether the subject “is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury,” State v. Helterbridle
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
702, and whether the subject “is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury,”
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Jerel Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Hassan Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Justin Raymon Wainner Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Expert testimony is not helpful if it “is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury” and “will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions about that subject which is within their experience.” see also Jackson, d at 691 (stating that expert opinion testimony on gang behavior “must add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions about matters that are not within its experience”).
State of Minnesota v. Linden Gene McKinney Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Wilber Vladimir Gonzalez Romero Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Yamieyefa Goldpin Ekiyor Minn. Ct. App. 2020
will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions.”
Michael Thomas Palke v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota (A17-1993) (A17-1995) v. Deandre Martell Weaver (A17-1993) (A17-1995) Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The basic requirement of Rule 702 is the helpfulness requirement.”
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Susan Kline Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Dean Smaller Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 545, 547 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Autumn Blakey Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In determining whether testimony is helpful, courts determine whether the testimony will “add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Bryce Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Israel Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Expert testimony fails the helpfulness test if it “is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury and the testimony of the expert will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions about that subject which is within their experience.”
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Andre Verlin Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ricardo Amigon-Vidal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In affirming the exclusion of this evidence, the Miles court relied on two earlier supreme court decisions
Ricardo Amigon-Vidal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(explaining in dicta that effective cross-examination, persuasive argument by defense counsel, proper jury instructions, and the requirement of jury unanimity are additional safeguards to ensure the reliability of eyewitness identification without the need to admit expert testimony regarding the r
State of Minnesota v. Edwin Gochingco Reyes 890 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Edwin Gochingco Reyes 890 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Williams Wermers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Williams Wermers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
State v. Hayes 831 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 2013
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
When interpreting this older version of the rule, we often stated that “the basic requirement of Rule 702 is the helpfulness requirement.” MacLennan, d at 233 (); see also
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
“[Ejxpert testimony is not helpful if the expert opinion ‘is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury and the testimony of the expert will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions.’ ” ().
State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions.”
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
Hayes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 773 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hayes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 773 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hakala 763 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hakala 763 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
State v. Moore 699 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2005
State v. Moore 699 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2005
Expert opinion testimony is not helpful if “the subject of the testimony is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury and the testimony of the expert will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions about that subject which is within their experience.”
State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
State v. DeShay 669 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2003

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by