Cited by

n.8 (Minn. 1997) (“[I]ssues not argued in briefs are deemed waived on appeal”).

“The basic consideration in admitting expert testimony under [r]ule 702 is the helpfulness test —that is, whether the testimony will assist the jury in resolving factual questions presented.”

See, (holding that expert testimony regarding battered-woman syndrome is admissible when it helps the fact-finder “understand behavior that might otherwise undermine the complainant’s credibility”).

See 2019 Minn. Laws ch. 16, § 1, at 1 (repealing Minn. Stat. § 609.349 (2018), the marital-rape exception to criminal sexual conduct); 197 (Minn. 1997) (affirming the district court’s admission of evidence that “many battered women do not report the abuse out of fear for their safety, denial of the abuse, fear that no one will listen, or hope that the batterer will change”).

Expert testimony in cases involving abuse is not “duplicative of prior testimony; rather, it [is] necessary to explain the complexity of [the victim’s] behavior.”

Expert testimony on battered-woman syndrome, which is analogous to the type of testimony offered here about patterns of domestic abuse, has been admissible when it “could help the jury understand behavior that might otherwise undermine the complainant’s credibility.”

“The basic consideration in admitting expert testimony under Rule 702 is the helpfulness test— that is, whether the testimony will assist the [fact-finder] in resolving factual questions presented.”

-94 (Minn. 1997) (holding that, for purposes of rule 608(a), state's witness's character for truthfulness was attacked in defendant's opening statement).

We therefore decline to address the merits of the dissent’s first argument, because to do so would defy the “axiomatic” principle “that issues not ‘argued’ in the briefs are deemed waived on appeal.” ( n.8 (Minn. 1997)).

n.8 (Minn. 1997) (noting that issues not argued in a brief are deemed waived on appeal).

Moreover, courts must be mindful of the fact that “[a]n expert with special knowledge has the potential to influence a jury unduly.” see also DeShay, d at 885-86 (Minn. 2003) (discussing perils of expert testimony, and concluding that law enforcement officer’s expert testimony on gangs was improperly admitted).

“The basic consideration in ad mitting expert testimony under Rule 702 is the helpfulness test—that is, whether the testimony will assist the jury in resolving factual questions presented.”

“The basic consideration in admitting expert testimony under Rule 702 is the helpfulness test—that is, whether the testimony will assist the [factfinder] in resolving factual questions presented.” d 189, 195 (Minn. 1997).

n.8 (Minn. 1997) (“[I]ssues not argued in briefs are deemed waived on appeal.”).

n.8 (Minn. 1997) (stating that “issues not argued in briefs are deemed waived on appeal.” ).

12 (“[T]he jury might believe th at a woman who is beaten by her mate would immediately seek to have him arrested and that such a woman would not recant such a statement despite threats made by the batterer.”).

n.8 (Minn. 1997) (“[I]ssues not argued in briefs are deemed waived on appeal.”) ().

d 189, 194 (Minn. 1997).

credibility.” see also Valentine, d at 639 (citing Grecinger and noting that expert testimony is admissible “to explain a victim’s counterintuitive behavior and exculpatory account of an incident, provided that the expert testimony is limited to describing the syndrome and its characteristics and the

(holding that testimony regarding the ultimate issue in a case is not always objectionable); (“Special care must be taken by the trial judge to ensure that the defendant’s presumption of innocence does not get lost in the flurry of expert testimony and, more importantly, that the responsibility for judging credibility and the facts remains with the jury.”).