Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Chambers, 507 N.W.2d 237.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Adam Taylor Fravel Minn. 2026
–39 (Minn. 1993) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
According to Smith, caselaw, DeWald, d at 744; review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001), prohibits such testimony.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Instead, Ancke argues that admission of the expert testimony was error because it addressed an “issue of fact and law.” -39 (Minn. 1993) (holding that expert testimony as to defendant’s intent was mixed question of law and fact).
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Nathan Rud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Nathan Rud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Opinions of the latter nature are not deemed to be of any use to the trier of fact.” (quoting Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 237, 239 (Minn. 1993); –03 (Minn. 1992); –32 (Minn. 1982).
State v. Dao Xiong 829 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 2013
State v. Dao Xiong 829 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 2013
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
Thus, expert testimony is inadmissible if “the jury is in as good a position to reach a decision as the expert.” 232 (Minn.1982) (concluding that a counselor’s testimony that complainant was a victim of sexual assault and rape was error because the testimony was not helpful to the jury); see also Moore, d at 740
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 784 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2010
State v. Crow 730 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
State v. Crow 730 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
Generally, a forensic pathologist may testify “to things such as the number and extent of the wounds, the amount of bleeding, * * * whether the wounds could or could not have been the result of accident, the cause of death, and so forth.” see generally Andre A. Moenssens, Ray Edward Moses & Fred E. Inbau, Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases 186-87 (1973) (discussing typical determinations made by the pathologist in cases of cutting and stabbing).
State v. Edwards 717 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2006
State v. Edwards 717 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2006
(holding that it was error to admit opinion testimony by a forensic pathologist on the question of intent); -04 (Minn.1992) (holding that the district court properly excluded defendant’s proffered psychiatric testimony on the questions of intent and premeditation)
State v. Lopez-Rios 669 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2003
State v. Lopez-Rios 669 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2003
State v. Carillo 623 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Carillo 623 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
Contrary to the state’s assertions, however

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by