State v. McGee
The holding in the court’s own words
We hold that the introduction of this evidence was fundamental error and sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial for the reasons set forth in State v. Saldana, 324 N.W.2d 227 (Minn.1982).
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- State of Minnesota v. Edwin Gochingco Reyes 890 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
- State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. Hall 406 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1987
- State v. Muller 358 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Danielski 350 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Booker 348 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1984
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Loss 204 N.W.2d 404
- State v. Loebach 310 N.W.2d 58
- State v. Goblirsch 246 N.W.2d 12
- State v. Saldana 324 N.W.2d 227
Opinion text
OTIS, Justice. This is an appeal from a conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the third degree in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.344 (c) (1980). We reverse. By way of rebutting appellant’s claim that the complainant consented to sexual intercourse, the state introduced the expert testimony of a physician which included a description of the so-called “rape trauma syndrome.” The doctor was permitted to render his opinion that complainant’s behavior, subsequent to the sexual encounter, consisting of anxiety, nightmares, trouble sleeping and trouble concentrating, and fear of being followed, were symptoms consistent with rape trauma syndrome. We hold that the introduction of this evidence was fundamental error and sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial for the reasons set forth in State v. Saldana, 324 N.W.2d 227 (Minn.1982). Reversed and remanded.