Cited by

“An expert witness may not testify as to the credibility of a specific witness, [but they] may be able to testify generally as to certain psychological or physiological conditions that may affect credibility, if such testimony is beyond the knowledge and experience of an average jury.”

This right, however, “is shaped by 10 the rules of evidence, which are “designed to assure both fairness and reliability in assessing guilt or innocence.” , 235 (Minn. 2010) ().

14 defense “is comprised, at a minimum, of the right to examine the witnesses against the defendant, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel.” see also Beecroft, d at 839 (stating that “[t]he right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, .

-42 (Minn. 2005) (recognizing that expert testimony about the effects of drug use can aid the jury in assessing a witness’s credibility, but nonetheless concluding that the district court acted within its discretion in precluding an expert from testifying to past general effects)

Yet the “assessment of witness credibility is a jury function.”

Although “[a]n expert witness may not testify as to the credibility of a specific witness, [they] may be able to testify generally as to certain psychological or physiological conditions that may affect credibility, if such testimony is beyond the knowledge and experience of an average jury.”

The “assessment of witness credibility is a jury function.”

(stating that “assessment of a witness credibility is a jury function”).

After Paradee, we have since applied the balancing test to evaluate whether privileged medical records should be disclosed in State v. Hummel

1, a defendant “may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included offense, but not both.” We have held that, under sectio n 609.04, “a defendant may not legally be convicted of two counts of first -degree murder when both convictions are for the same offense, are on the basis of the same act, and involve the same victim.” State v. Reese , see also State v. Johnson , (holding that the district court erred in convicting the defendant of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of

See State v. Reese , (stating that testimony about another’s credibility is inadmissible).

See Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 1045 (1973)

However, the defendant must still com ply with established rules of evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in assessing guilt or innocence.” (citation omitted).

We have explained that a defendant cannot be “convicted of *650 two counts of first-degree murder when both convictions are for the same offense, are on the basis of the same act, and involve the same victim[s].” (holding, based on Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (2016), that the defendant could not be convicted of both first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree murder during the commission of an aggravated robbery).

See Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 1045 (1973)

.” (“[A]ssessment of witness credibility is a jury function.”).

[holding in Cegon was that evidence was sufficient to convict defendant as principal] (acknowledging that assessment of witness credibility is a jury function).

However, the defendant must still comply with established rules of evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in assessing guilt or innocence.” (citation omitted).

2528, 2532 (1984)); (stating that the right to present a complete defense includes the right to call and examine witnesses).

But “[a]ssessment of witness credibility is a jury function.”

“[T]he proper procedure is generally for the trial court to review the medical records at issue in 13 camera to determine whether the privilege must give way.” d 736, 742 (Minn. 2005).

(citing Chambers, 410 U.S. at 294 , 93 S.Ct.

(noting that the assessment of witness credibility and the weight to be to be given to witness testimony is a jury function); see also State v. Strege, 116 Wis.2d 477 , 107 (1984) (viewing the evidence adduced at trial “ ⅛ the light most favorable to the defendant’” when determini