Cited by

See, (affirming admission of officer lay-opinion testimony because the officers testified about facts and evidence revealed by their investigation), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

–12 (Minn. App. 2018) (concluding that appellant could not be convicted and sentenced for both assault -fear and assault- harm because both counts were based on the same conduct), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

In other words, “[t]he state’s argument was tailored to meet the arguments made by appellant’s trial counsel and does not constitute misconduct.” 22 (Minn. App. 2018) (concluding prosecutor’s closing statement “when is the word of a rape victim not enough,” followed by “look at the physical evidence we have in this case” was not misconduct because it was tailored to meet defendant’s argument that the victim was not credible misconduct), rev. denied (M

DeWald, d at 744; rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

(quotation 4 omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

-10 (Minn. App. 2018), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

“‘[U] ltimate conclusion testimony which embraces legal conclusions or terms of art’ is not considered helpful to the jury.” (), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

7 It is true that “‘[u]ltimate conclusion testimony which embraces legal conclusions or terms of art’ is not helpful to the jury.” (), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

d 798, 807 (Minn. App. 2018) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

–12 (Minn. App. 2018), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

also limited the scope of the officer’s testimony to exclude any mention of prior arrests involving Harvey, such that it served only to establish that the officer recognized Harvey in the surveillance footage and not to “suggest[] that [Harvey] was a person of bad character who had frequent contacts with the police.” -08 (Minn. App. 2018) (holding that an officer’s testimony that he knew the defendant from prior contacts, without explaining what those contacts were, did not affect the defendant’

“A limiting instruction from the district court lessens the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence.” -06 (Minn. App. 2018) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

(noting that ultimate issue testimony that “embraces legal conclusions or terms of art is not considered helpful to the jury” and that a district court “may also exclude testimony on the ultimate issue when the testimony would merely tell the jury what result to reach.

(emphasis added), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

The word “any” in the phrase “any other crime” receives “broad application” and “generally means every or all.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

We engaged in a careful analysis of our precedent

“[A]n appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal,” and “matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

- 08 (Minn. App. 2018), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

And to the extent the state asks us to assume the constitutional validity of Dixon’s prior discharge of counsel in any other matter, we decline to do so because we cannot “base [our] decision on matters outside the record 9 on appeal” or consider “matters not produced and received in evidence below.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

(explaining that expert testimony that “embraces legal conclusions or terms of art” is not admissible); 6 (stating that “ultimate conclusion testimony which embraces legal conclusions or terms of art is not considered helpful to the jury” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

See State v. Patzold , -12 (Minn. App. 2018), review denied (Minn. Nov.

was neither “reliable” nor “credible.” “Prosecutors have considerable latitude during closing arguments and are not required to make a colorless argument.” (quotations omitted), review denied (Minn. Nov.

review denied (Minn. Nov.

“Prosecutors have ‘considerable latitude’ during closing arguments and are ‘not required to make a colorless argument.’” (), review denied (Minn. Nov.

(quotations and citations omitted), review denied (Minn. Nov.

This limitation applies equally to expert witnesses, id., and lay witnesses, review denied (Minn. Nov.

Compare Chambers, d at 238-39 (concluding that expert’s opinion that victim’s stab wounds showed defendant’s intent to kill was inadmissible), and Hogetvedt, d at 915 (reversing conviction where officer, who di d not witness altercation, testified that accused “assaulted” the victim), (holding there was no e rror in officers’ lay opinions th at assault occurred because officer testimony was rationally based on perceptions in investigating crime scene), review denied (Minn. Nov.

But whether Nowels’s “offenses occurred as part of a single course of conduct is a mixed question of law and fact.” -10 (Minn. App. 2018), review denied (Minn. Nov.

See State v. Patzold , (holding that Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd.

review denied (Minn. Nov.

See, -03 (Minn. App. 2018), review denied (Minn. Nov.

-06 (Minn. 8 App. 2018), review denied (Minn. Nov.

6, allows for the conviction of and sentence for ‘any other crime,’ including a crim e committed during the same behavioral incident as a [CSC] offense involving force or violence.” review denied (Minn. Nov.

See State v. Patzold , n.4 (Minn. App. 2018) (“Appellant does not argue on appeal that only one domestic-assault conviction was proper under Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (2016).