Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Provost, 490 N.W.2d 93.

85 citing documents.

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); -31 (Minn.1982) (holding that it was reversible error to allow opinion testimony from a sexual assault counselor on whet
State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See *394 -78 (Minn.1998) (holding that when defendant voluntarily leaves courtroom, he waives right under Confrontation Clause to be present at trial); (stating defendant may intelligently waive right against self-incrimination); (stating that defendant may waive right to jury trial if waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary).
Torres v. State 688 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2004
Torres v. State 688 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2004
In Re the Welfare of B.R.C. 675 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of B.R.C. 675 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Dukes v. State 660 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2003
Dukes v. State 660 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2003
State v. Jorgensen 660 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 2003
State v. Jorgensen 660 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 2003
State v. Ture 632 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2001
State v. Ture 632 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2001
Rule 401 “adopts a minimal relevancy approach.”
Dukes v. State 621 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2001
Dukes v. State 621 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2001
Hummel v. State 617 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2000
Hummel v. State 617 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2000
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
702 and our prior cases, did not allow the experts to testify, concluding that the jurors did not need expert testimony to understand either defense and therefore such testimony would not assist the jury “to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Id.; (stating that “expert opinion testimony regarding the general effects * * * of intoxication is ordinarily inadmissible because most jurors have some experience with these conditions”) cert, denied, 507 U.S. 929 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
State v. Hendrickson 584 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Hendrickson 584 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
1 (statements made during custo- ■ dial interrogation inadmissible “unless the suspect is given the Miranda warning and intelligently waives the right against self-incrimination”) (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 , 86 S.Ct.
State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
State v. Mills 562 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1997
State v. Mills 562 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1997
-04 (Minn.1992) (citations omitted), cert.
State v. Persitz 518 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1994
State v. Persitz 518 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1994
State v. Chambers 507 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1993
State v. Chambers 507 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1993
vant part, that in determining whether or not an opinion will assist the jury the court should make a distinction “between opinions as to factual matters, and opinions involving a legal analysis or mixed questions of law and fact.” As the Comment states, “[ojpinions of the latter nature are not deemed to be of any use to the trier of fact.” upholding the exclusion of expert opinion testimony presented by the defense on the question of whether, objectively, the defendant premeditated and intended
State v. Brink 500 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Brink 500 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In its order, the trial court ruled the proffered expert testimony was admissible during phase II of the bifurcated trial, cert, denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct.