Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Morales-Mulato, 744 N.W.2d 679.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[ A]n expert qualified to render an opinion with respect to the emotional and psychological characteristics often observed in children who are victims of sexual abuse may testify about those characteristics and may 17 describe characteristics or emotional conditions that the expert observed in the complainant.” (citing Myers, d at 609-11).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See id.; (concluding that forensic interviewer’s testimony that victim met assessment criteria and had been sexually abused was harmless error because the jury could assess victim’s credibility without the testimony), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Distinguished State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
For example, looking to references in Minnesota caselaw, we see that some individuals have used the term “private parts” in a manner that does not include breasts, 1 We observe a material distinction between two reporters regarding the quoted language.
State of Minnesota v. Casey Lee Frankl Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Casey Lee Frankl Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In support of this contention, d 783 (Minn. App. 2006), aff’d, rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A22-0979 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
at 609- 10; (concluding that the expert’s testimony was not admissible because, “[a]lthough the prosecutor here 7 carefully avoided directly asking [expert] about complainant’s credibility or truthfulness, it is apparent in this case .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Toman Davin Matthews, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Myers, d at 610; rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Finally, regarding the forensic interviewer’s test imony concerning the credibility-assessment factors, Bush acknowledges that the expert ’s testimony identifying and explaining the factors was admissible but asserts that the interviewer’s testimony that the child’s interview 9 in fact satisfied those factors was plainly inadmissible under this court’s decision in State v. Morales-Mulato , review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Limon argues that the state used Mitnick to vouch for the victim’s credibility, review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“In most cases, even though an expert’s testimony about the credibility of a witness could provide the jury with useful informatio n, the possibility that the jury may be unduly influenced by an expert’s opini on mitigates against admission.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
8 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This standard aligns with the foundational principle that “credibility of a witness is peculiarly within the competence of the jury, whose common experience affords sufficient basis for the assessment of cr edibility.” (quotation omitted) , review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Cf. S tate v. Morales -Mulato, , 690 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Justin Wayne Hannine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Wayne Hannine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that, although interviewer’s testimony that, in her opinion, 11-year-old complainant had been sexually abused was improper vouching for complainant’s credibility, it was harmless error, and affirming because evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
See, Oheta I, 2009 WL 2596102 , at *3; -88 (Minn.App.2008), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Hakala 763 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hakala 763 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Id.; (acknowledging that protocol for interviewing child reporters of sexual abuse “may not be within the experience of jurors or discernable from the interview itself’), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See, d *775 386, 389 (Minn.1984); review denied (Minn. Apr.