DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

130 citing documents.

  • Wojciechowski v. William D. Stanley Shows, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Wojciechowski v. William D. Stanley Shows, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Bjornson 378 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Bjornson 378 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Soukup 376 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Soukup 376 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Galvan 368 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Galvan 368 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Packard 366 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Packard 366 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Sorensen v. Maski 361 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Sorensen v. Maski 361 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Myers 359 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1984
  • Explained State v. Myers 359 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1984
    3 : 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 that experience, then the testimony does not meet the helpfulness test.
  • State v. Muller 358 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Muller 358 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    at 873 (citations omitted)
  • State v. Hitch 356 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Hitch 356 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Danielski 350 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Danielski 350 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The trial court has “broad discretion in deciding whether testimony by a qualified expert should be received.”
  • State v. Svoboda 331 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Svoboda 331 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1983
    9 (Minn.1982), we stated, “In a close case in which identification is in issue, it might be prejudicial error for the trial court to refuse to specifically instruct the jury that identification must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and to refuse to give a cautionary instruction specifying the factors to be used in evaluating eyewitness identification testimony.” State v. Christian, 309 Minn. 393 , State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188 , and State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
  • State v. Saxton 331 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Saxton 331 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1983
    (d) Defendant’s and State v. St.
  • State v. Saldana 324 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Rono 324 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Rono 324 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1982
    State v. Christian, 309 Minn. 393 , State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188 , and State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
  • State v. Saldana 324 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1982
  • State v. St. John 299 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1980
  • State v. St. John 299 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1980
    in which we held the admission of expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification to be within the discretion of the trial court, answers defendant’s last contention.