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.

  • In Re the Welfare of R.B. 369 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • In Re the Welfare of R.B. 369 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Although the psychologists were not allowed to express an opinion as to whether appellant personally had abused the children, see, they did state their opinions that the children did not fabricate the stories, and that some sexual abuse had occurred.
  • State v. Huey 699 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 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
  • State v. Carlson 360 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Carlson 360 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    The defendant made a motion in limine to prevent the use of any expert testimony concerning “child sexual abuse syndrome.” The court granted the motion on the ground that the testimony was inadmissible as a matter of law
  • State v. Myers 359 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Myers 359 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1984
    we ruled inadmissible expert testimony regarding rape trauma syndrome because evidence of the typical reactions of a woman who has been raped does not assist the jury in determining whether or not the sexual act was consensual in a particular case and because the testimony furnishes no assistance to juror
  • State v. Trotter 354 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Trotter 354 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
    does not require a different conclusion because the expert was not a physician and the case involved rape, a circumstance under which expert testimony is treated as sui generis.
  • State v. Danielski 350 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Danielski 350 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    *397 Rule 702, Minn.R.Evid.
  • State v. Booker 348 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Booker 348 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1984
    Defendant’s is misplaced.
  • State v. McGee 324 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1982
  • State v. McGee 324 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1982
    We hold that the introduction of this evidence was fundamental error and sufficiently prejudicial to require a