Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Grecinger, 569 N.W.2d 189.

124 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jose Luis Guzman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Luis Guzman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (stating that a victim’s credibility “can be attacked during cross-examination of the victim or even during opening statements”).
State of Minnesota v. Mannie Lamar Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mannie Lamar Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Tuseth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Tuseth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The basic consideration in admitting expert testimony under rule 702 is the helpfulness test-that is, whether the testimony will assist the jury in resolving factual questions presented.” d 189, 195 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[E]videntiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the [district] court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” 21 (quotation omitted); (stating that the decision whether to admit expert testimony is within the discretion of the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The district court has discretion to admit expert testimony, and its determination 7 will not be reversed “absent an apparent error.”
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 839 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2013
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 839 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2013
193 n. 8 (Minn.1997) (explaining that issues not argued in briefs are deemed waived on appeal).
State v. Hayes 831 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 2013
State v. Dao Xiong 829 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 2013
State v. Dao Xiong 829 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 2013
State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(stating that reversal of evidentiary rulings requires “apparent error”).
Jackson v. State 817 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2012
State v. Hanks 817 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2012
State v. Hanks 817 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2012
-97 (Minn.1997), noting that the testimony in that case explained “why a woman would keep returning to an abuser and why a woman would change her story in order to maintain that relationship.” Because Hanks was neither returning to an abusive relationship nor attempting to maintain an abusive relationship, the cou
Jackson v. State 817 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2012
...”); , 193 n. 8 (Minn.1997) ("[IJssues not argued in briefs are deemed waived on appeal.”).
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
We recognize that “[a]n expert with special knowledge has the potential to influence a jury unduly.”
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
Hayes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 773 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hayes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 773 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“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.”
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
Carey v. State 765 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Carey v. State 765 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hakala 763 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hakala 763 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
may be reversed only if the [district] court clearly abused its discretion.” (citations omitted); (stating that reversal requires “apparent error”).
Brocks v. State 753 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
Brocks v. State 753 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
746 n. 1 (Minn. 1998) (indicating that although appellant "allude[d]” to issues, failure to "address them in the argument portion of his brief” constituted waiver); , 193 n. 8 (Minn.1997) ("issues not argued in briefs are deemed waived on appeal”)
State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
3 “The admission of expert testimony is within the broad discretion accorded a trial court, and rulings regarding materiality, foundation, remoteness, relevancy, or the cumulative nature of the evidence may be reversed only if the trial court clearly abused its discretion.” (quotation and citation omitted); (holding that reversal requires “apparent error”).
State v. Crow 730 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
State v. Crow 730 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
State v. Moore 699 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2005
State v. Moore 699 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2005
se an expert with special knowledge has the potential to unduly influence a jury, this court has stated that “[sjpecial 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 *740 judging credibility and the facts remains with the jury.”
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Vance 685 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 2004