Cited by

“Expert testimony is not helpful if the expert opinion is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury and the testimony of the expert will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

ate would like the expert to explain, that this is not an uncommon situation.” Detective C.G., the state proposed, would testify about the “dynamics of domestic violence, ” namely that victims 6 “may not always report violent incidents” and often “return to the people who have been violent to them.” Jones objected, noting that the authority the state was relying upon , was decided about 14 years earlier.

702 when it is helpful to the jury.”

Minnesota Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony and provides that an expert may give their opinion if their “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” “[E]xpert testimony is admissible under [rule] 702 when it is helpful to the jury.”

As the amicus brief 2 points 1 Sexual-assault myths are “prejudicial, stereotyped, or false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists.” (citing Amy M. Buddie & Arthur G. Miller, Beyond Rape Myths: A More Complex View of Perceptions of Rape Victims, 45, 45 Sex Roles 139–40 (2001); see also Suzanne St.

“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see, (concluding that the district court abused its discretion by erroneously determining that certain testimony was inadmissible as a matter of law when the district court had discretion to admit the testimony).

289 (Minn. 2011); see also Minn. R. Evid.

n.6 (Minn. 2006); -87 (Minn. 2011) (explaining the supreme court’s “inherent judicial authority”).

Expert testimony is admissible under rule 702 if: “(1) the witness is qualified as an expert; (2) the expert’s opinion has foundational reliability; (3) the expert testimony is helpful to the jury; and (4) if the testimony involves a novel scientific theory, it must satisfy the Frye-Mack standard.”

702 when it is helpful to the jury.”

This authority to make an exception to the requirements to hear an appeal lies uniquely with our court, as it is rooted in the Minnesota Constitution vesting us with “appellate jurisdiction in all cases.” (quoting Minn. Const. art. VI, § 2).

Expert testimony is admissible under rule 702 if it meets four criteria: “(1) the witness is qualified as an expert; (2) the expert’s opinion has foundational reliability; (3) the expert testimony is helpful to the jury; and (4) if the testimony involves a novel scientific theory, it must satisfy the Frye-Mack standard.”

Nor may an expert opine as to matters within the jurors’ lay knowledge and experience because it “will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions.” (quotation omitted).

Expert testimony is admissible under rule 702 if it meets four criteria: “(1) the witness is qua lified as an expert; (2) the expert’s opinion has foundational reliability; (3) the expert testimony is helpful to the jury; and (4) if the testimony involves a novel scientific theory, it must satisfy the Frye-Mack standard.”

But rule 403 still applies to expert testimony, and “[e]ven helpful, relevant evidence may be excluded if the trial court concludes that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or of misleading the jury.” Id.; (recognizing that “an expert with special knowledge has the potential to influence a jury unduly” (quotation omitted)).

g, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” “Under this rule, expert testimony is admissible if: (1) the witness is qualified as an expert; (2) the expert’s opinion has foundational reliability; (3) the expert t estimony is helpful to the jury; and (4) if the testimony involves a novel scientific theory, it [satisfies] the Frye-Mack standard.”

Expert testimony is admissible if: (1) the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education; (2) the opinion has foundational reliability; (3) the testimony helps the jury; and (4) it satisfies the Frye-Mack test if it involves a “novel scientific theory.” Minn. R. Evid.

at 667; -92 (Minn. 2011) (explaining that the supreme court’s “more recent case law has recognized that such expert opinion testimony on the typical behaviors of victims of similar crimes may be helpful to the jury”).

In other words under Minnesota rule of Evidence 70 2, “expert testimony is admissible if: (1) the witness is qualified as an expert; (2) the expert’s opinion has foundational reliability; (3) the expert testimony is helpful to the jury; and (4) if the testimony involves a novel scientific theory, it must satisfy the Frye-Mack standard.”

“Expert testimony is not helpful if the expert opinion is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury and the testimony of the expert will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions.” (quotations omitted).

1(1), the state must show that “the district court’s ruling will have a critical impact on its case.” State v. Obeta

Expert testimony is not helpful if it is “within the knowled ge and experience of a lay jury and the testimony of the expert will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions.” (quotation omitted).

Under this rule, expert testimony is admissible if “(1) the witness is qualified as an expert; (2) the expert’s opinion has foundational reliability; (3) the expert testimony is helpful to the jury; and (4) if the testimony involves a novel scientific theory, it must satisfy the Frye– Mack standard.”

n. 5 (Minn. 2011) (discussing expert testimony on “effects of trauma on memory” of sexual-assault survivor).

702; State v. Obeta , (articulating this standard).

“[T]he standard for critical impact is that the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.” (discussing the critical -impact standard).