Cited by

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

130 citing documents.

State v. DeShay 669 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2003
In all of these cases, expert police testimony added “precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions,” even on subjects within the jury’s common experiences and, therefore, satisfied the helpfulness test.
State v. Fedor 628 N.W.2d 164 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Fedor 628 N.W.2d 164 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
State v. Wolf 592 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Wolf 592 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
“[T]he district court has broad discretion in deciding whether téstimony by a qualified expert should be received.”
State v. Miles 585 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1998
State v. Miles 585 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1998
State v. Grecinger 569 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1997
State v. Grecinger 569 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1997
State v. Barlow 541 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1995
State v. Barlow 541 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1995
on which the trial judge relied in the present case.
State v. Brink 500 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Brink 500 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Provost 490 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1992
State v. Davidson 481 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1992
State v. Davidson 481 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1992
State v. Borchardt 478 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1991
State v. Borchardt 478 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1991
State v. Brovold 477 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Brovold 477 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
City of St. Paul v. Various Items of Drug Paraphernalia 474 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
City of St. Paul v. Various Items of Drug Paraphernalia 474 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
As the supreme court explained, “The basic requirement of Rule 702 is the helpfulness requirement.”
State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Respondent argues that the proposed expert testimony failed the “helpfulness test”
State v. Oslund 469 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Oslund 469 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Erickson 454 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Erickson 454 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Williams 451 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Williams 451 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In determining whether the testimony is helpful, the subject of the testimony must be outside the knowledge and experience of a lay jury or the testimony must “add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions about [a] subject which is within their experience * *
State v. Ingold 450 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Ingold 450 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The basic requirement of this rule is the “helpfulness requirement.”
Rowe v. Goldberg 435 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Rowe v. Goldberg 435 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Further, stated: 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, then the testimony does not meet the helpfulness
State v. Hall 406 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1987
State v. Hall 406 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1987
State v. Hall 392 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hall 392 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Steinbrecher v. McLeod Cooperative Power Ass'n 392 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Steinbrecher v. McLeod Cooperative Power Ass'n 392 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Daley 384 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Daley 384 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Fitzgerald 382 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Fitzgerald 382 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(exclusion of expert testimony regarding unreliability of eyewitness testimony not an abuse of discretion).
Scott v. Johnson 379 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Scott v. Johnson 379 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 1985