Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Obeta, 796 N.W.2d 282.
-
State v. Wenthe
839 N.W.2d 83
Minn. 2013
-94 (Minn.2011) (discussing relevance to evaluating complainant’s credibility of evidence explaining the reasons why a complainant delayed reporting a sexual assault); (same).
- State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
-
State v. Castillo-Alvarez
836 N.W.2d 527
Minn. 2013
Moreover, as the concurrence notes, there are many rules of evidence that, while promulgated by our court based on our "inherent judicial authority to regulate and supervise the rules that govern the admission of evidence,” have both procedural and substantive purposes.
- State v. M.D.T. 831 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2013
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
-
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis
817 N.W.2d 150
Minn. 2012
702 when determining whether syndrome evidence would be helpful to the jury)); -94 (Minn.2011); -99 (Minn.1989) (concluding that expert testimony on battered-woman syndrome would be helpful to the jury under a Minn. R. Evid.
- John Doe 76C v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis 801 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
-
John Doe 76C v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis
801 N.W.2d 203
Minn. Ct. App. 2011
702 to discern whether expert testimony on syndromes would be helpful to the jury); -94 (Minn.2011) (concluding that “the mental and physical reactions of an adult sexual-assault victim may lie outside the common understanding of an average juror[,]” reversing “the district court’s determination that the State’s proffered expert testimony is inadmissible as a matter of law[,]” and remanding to th