Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jensen, 482 N.W.2d 238.

23 citing documents.

Shareef Najeeaullah Shaheed, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(using a blood sample taken more than 11 hours later to calculate alcohol concentration at the time of driving), review denied (Minn. May 15, 1992).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-39 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. May 15, 1992).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Jensen , review denied (Minn. May 15, 1992).
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Berry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Berry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-40 (Minn. App. 1992) (upholding admission of 8 expert testimony using retrograde extrapolation to determine alcohol concentration), review denied (Minn. May 15, 1992).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
702; –40 (Minn. App. 1992) (affirming the admission of expert testimony on retrograde extrapolation and stating that the Frye-Mack and Dille tests commonly used to examine the admissibility of scientific evidence do not apply to retrograde extrapolation, which is not emerging or novel and is a mathematical formula
State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(concluding that it was not error for the district court to permit a ballistics expert to testify to a “reasonable degree of scientific certainty” that the handgun was the source of the collected shell casings because the expert proffered qualitative testimony and did not testify conclusively that the shells could not have come from any other gun); -40 (Minn.App.1992) (holding that the district court did not err in allowing experts in blood alcohol concentration analysis to testify that “based o
Ellingson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 800 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Ellingson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 800 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
-40 (Minn.App.1992) (holding that expert testimony relying on retrograde extrapolation to establish alcohol concentration of defendant’s blood at time of accident was admissible but noting expert testimony that retrograde extrapolation is “unreliable when an expert has insufficient information about variables”), r
State v. Edstrom 792 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Edstrom 792 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“Expert testimony generally is admissible if: (1) it assists the trier of fact; (2) it has a reasonable basis; (3) it is relevant; and (4) its probative value outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.” review denied (Minn. May 15, 1992); see Minn. R. Evid.
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
review denied (Minn. May 15,1992).
State v. Wolf 605 N.W.2d 381 Minn. 2000
State v. Wolf 605 N.W.2d 381 Minn. 2000
rev. denied (Minn. May 15, 1992).
State v. Wolf 592 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Wolf 592 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
review denied (Minn. May 15, 1992).
In Re the Welfare of K.A.S. 585 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Welfare of K.A.S. 585 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Expert testimony is generally admissible if: “(1) it assists the trier of fact, (2) it has a reasonable basis, (3) it is relevant, and (4) its probative value outweighs its potential for prejudice.” review denied (Minn. May 15, 1992).
Hotchkiss v. Commissioner of Public Safety 553 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Hotchkiss v. Commissioner of Public Safety 553 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
-40 (Minn.App.1992), review denied (Minn. May 15, 1992).