Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Dana, 422 N.W.2d 246.

31 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. William Gray Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. William Gray Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But the supreme court has distinguished between “the admission of expert opinion testimony bearing on whether sexual abuse has occurred” and expert testimony “on the issue of who it was who abused the children,” noting that the latter “was objectionable.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
But the supreme court has distinguished between “the admission of expert opinion testimony bearing on whether sexual abuse has occurred” and expert testimony “on the issue of who it was who abused the children,” noting that the latter “was objectionable.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
–51 (Minn. 1988); d 341, 349 (Minn. App. 1999) (noting that a licensed social worke r and child interview specialist was qualified to opine whether the child’s allegatio ns supported a finding of 11 sexual abuse).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Wayne Hannine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Wayne Hannine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, -51 (Minn. 1988) (holding that, while expert testimony as to who had abused two brothers aged four and five was objectionable, “[e]xpert testimony relating to whether the children had been sexually abused was properly admitted”); (holding that social wor
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
-51 (Minn.1988), to conclude that it was required to admit Nuernberg’s opinion that complainant had been sexually abused.
Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
State v. Hollander 590 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Hollander 590 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-51 (Minn.1988) (“Expert testimony relating to whether the children had been sexually abused was properly admitted.”) But opinion testimony on the issue of who it was who committed the sexual abuse is not proper.
State v. Williams 510 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Williams 510 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
-51 (Minn.1988) (defendant failed to object to physician’s opinion testimony, and there was no prejudice).
Matter of Welfare of TLJ 495 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Welfare of TLJ 495 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Edwards 485 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1992
State v. Edwards 485 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1992
we discussed the nature of a hearing on the admissibility of such evidence.
State v. Olson 482 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1992
State v. Olson 482 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1992
29 , 112 L.Ed.2d 7 (1990); City of St.
State v. Larson 472 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1991
State v. Larson 472 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1991
The "heart of the matter of determining whether to admit hearsay is that unreliable evidence should be kept from the jury,” which is a “legal determination * *
State v. Kraushaar 470 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1991
State v. Kraushaar 470 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1991
(a defendant ordinarily cannot obtain relief on appeal from the absence of a pretrial hearing on the admission of evidence if he did not object on that ground); (expert testimony on whether it was the defendant who abused the child was objectionable, but defense counsel did not object).
State v. Lanam 459 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1990
State v. Lanam 459 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1990
State v. Larson 447 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Larson 447 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
d at 312 , admission of the name of the alleged perpetrator through medical records was held to be harmless error.
State v. Lanam 444 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Lanam 444 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
The supreme court, however, rejected a (statute could not be read to exclude child’s statement witnessing abuse of another child).
State v. Conklin 444 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1989