Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Nystrom, 596 N.W.2d 256.

31 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
g: a victim “reaching for a gun ,” a victim “grabb[ing] a knife” after a defendant “smacked” her, -07 (Minn. 1990); a victim “reach[ing] for a weapon after [a defendant] assaulted him,” Eason, d at 262, 265; and a victim ’s physical gesture “challenging [a defendant] to a fight,”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Courts have traditionally proceeded with great caution when admitting testimony of expert witnesses, especially in criminal cases, because ‘an expert with special knowledge has the potential to influence a jury unduly.’” -60 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
But under the objective element, “[t]he adequacy of the provocation is judged from the perspective of a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances.” (emphasis added).
Minn. 2020
State v. Hale , −07 (Minn. 1990); see also State v. Nystrom , (holding that a victim’s physical gesture challenging the defendant to fight as the defendant rode away on his bike was insufficient to provoke a person of ordinary self-control).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
at 597; see also State v. Nystrom
Loving v. State 891 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2017
Loving v. State 891 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2017
State v. Dao Xiong 829 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 2013
State v. Dao Xiong 829 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 2013
to support his argument.
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
DeShay, d at 885 (-60 (Minn.1999)).
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005
State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
testimony may be offered by a qualified expert if the “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” The district court “scrutinize^] the proffered expert testimony as it would other evidence and excludefs] it when the testimony is irrelevant, confusing, or otherwise not helpful.”
State v. DeShay 669 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2003
State v. DeShay 669 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2003
State v. Vazquez 644 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Vazquez 644 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(-86 (Minn.1997)); see also Minn.Stat.
Goeb v. Tharaldson 615 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2000
Goeb v. Tharaldson 615 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2000
State v. Bjork 610 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2000
State v. Bjork 610 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2000
We have stated that, “The elements of self-defense are by nature very specific to the person apprehending fear and the very particular circumstances *637 causing fear.”
State v. Vue 606 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Vue 606 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(holding district court must scrutinize proffered expert testimony and exclude it if it is irrelevant, confusing, or not helpful).