Cited by

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.”

702, and whether the subject “is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury,” State v. Helterbridle

702, and whether the subject “is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury,”

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”).

will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions.”

“The basic requirement of Rule 702 is the helpfulness requirement.”

d 545, 547 (Minn. 1980).

In determining whether testimony is helpful, courts determine whether the testimony will “add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions.”

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.”

In affirming the exclusion of this evidence, the Miles court relied on two earlier supreme court decisions

(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

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

“[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.’ ” ().

will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions.”

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.”