Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Myers, 359 N.W.2d 604.

220 citing documents.

State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
State v. Vue 606 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Vue 606 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(stating in most sexual-assault cases, risk of undue influence on jury mitigates against admitting expert testimony concerning an adult complainant’s credibility, but recognizing limited exceptions for unusual cases as where alleged victim is child or mentally retarded person).
State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
State v. Nystrom 596 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1999
State v. Nystrom 596 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1999
State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
1 (1996) (providing that “[i]n a prosecution under sections 609.342 to 609.346, the testimony of a victim need not be corroborated.”); d *390 78, 78 (Minn.1978).
State v. Miles 585 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1998
State v. Miles 585 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1998
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
(holding admission of expert testimony not erroneous where expert described typical traits and characteristics of sexually abused children); (determining district court did not abuse discretion by permitting psychologist’s testimony about “emotional
State v. Kennedy 572 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Kennedy 572 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
-10 (Minn.1984) (as general rule, expert testimony regarding truth or falsity of victim-witness’s allegations not admissible unless it only indirectly bolsters testimony); -95 (Minn.App.1986) (trial court did not abuse discretion by excluding expert testimony offered only to
State v. Grecinger 569 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1997
State v. Grecinger 569 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1997
State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
State v. Koskela 536 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1995
State v. Koskela 536 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1995
State v. Goldenstein 505 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Goldenstein 505 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Wiskow 501 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Wiskow 501 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Jones 500 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Jones 500 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Lee 494 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1993
State v. Maurer 491 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1992
State v. Maurer 491 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1992
State v. Borchardt 478 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1991
State v. Borchardt 478 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1991
The decision of whether to admit expert opinion testimony is within the trial court’s discretion, and a reviewing court will not reverse unless there is an “apparent error.”
State v. Brovold 477 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Brovold 477 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Morgan 477 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Morgan 477 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Ellis 476 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Ellis 476 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Kraushaar 470 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1991
State v. Kraushaar 470 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1991
On the general subject of admission of expert testimony in child sex abuse prosecutions
State v. Oslund 469 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Oslund 469 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
It is error to admit expert opinion testimony on the truth or falsity of a witness’s allegations about a crime, “for the expert’s status may lend an unwarranted ‘stamp of scientific legitimacy’ to the allegations.” (citation omitted) (child sexual abuse case); (expert testimony on the truthfulness of sexual abuse allegations by children in general is improper), pet.
State v. Cichon 458 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Glidden 459 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Cichon 458 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Glidden 459 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Erickson 454 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Erickson 454 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1990