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. Saldana, 324 N.W.2d 227.

119 citing documents.

  • State v. Klosterboer 529 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Her 510 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Her 510 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    (admission of expert rape trauma syndrome testimony was error).
  • State v. Chambers 507 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Chambers 507 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1993
    We do not, for example, allow expert opinion testimony on the ultimate question of whether a rape victim had rape trauma syndrome, nor on whether a battered woman in fact suffered from the battered woman syndrome, -80 (Minn.1989).
  • State v. Provost 490 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Provost 490 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1992
    We do not, for example, allow expert opinion testimony on the ultimate question of whether a rape victim had rape trauma syndrome, nor on whether a battered woman in fact suffered from the battered woman syndrome, -800 (Minn.1989).
  • State v. Borchardt 478 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Borchardt 478 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1991
    we held that the state could not introduce expert opinion that the alleged rape victim suffered from “rape trauma syndrome” and was not fabricating her allegations.
  • State v. Brovold 477 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Brovold 477 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Behlke v. Conwed Corp. 474 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Behlke v. Conwed Corp. 474 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    appellant argues that the testimony unfairly prejudiced his case because “evidence of reactions of other people does not assist the jury in its fact-finding function” and creates an “aura of special reliability and trustworthiness” surrounding the victim’s te
  • State v. DeWald 463 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1990
  • State v. DeWald 463 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1990
    704, testimony in the form of an opinion otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it bears directly on an ultimate issue, -231 , 231 n. 5 (Minn.1982) (while expert may “testify to observations of physical and emotional conditions,” expert’s conclusion that person examined was “raped” is inadmissible).
  • State v. Erickson 454 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Erickson 454 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    In a Minnesota has balanced the need for expert evidence against interference with the exclusive function of the jury to determine witness credibility.
  • State v. Williams 451 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Williams 451 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Ronnebaum 446 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Hennum 441 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Hennum 441 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1989
    The court of appeals relied on this court’s which held it was error for a trial court to admit expert testimony as to “rape trauma syndrome” in a rape case.
  • State v. Hennum 428 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Hennum 428 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    We think it was also error for the court to admit evidence as to the “battered women’s syndrome.” our supreme court held that it was error for the trial court to admit expert testimony as to the “rape trauma syndrome” in a rape case.
  • Seelye v. State 429 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Seelye v. State 429 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Collard 414 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Collard 414 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hall 406 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Hall 406 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1987
    and its companion case, we held that the admission of such testimony was error.
  • State v. Garden 404 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Garden 404 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Danielski v. State 395 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Danielski v. State 395 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hall 392 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hall 392 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    1 Defense counsel objected to Dr. Bell’s and would be unduly prejudicial to appellant.
  • State v. Roberts 393 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Roberts 393 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Bellotti 383 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Bellotti 383 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Scott v. Johnson 379 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Scott v. Johnson 379 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Wojciechowski v. William D. Stanley Shows, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Miller 377 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Miller 377 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Wojciechowski v. William D. Stanley Shows, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 87 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
    Counsel for Soukup objected strongly, in support of his contention that Dr. Broughton’s testimony was inadmissible.