Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. DeShay, 669 N.W.2d 878.

86 citing documents.

State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
(addressing prejudicial expert testimony in the context of trial, not before grand jury).
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
In DeShay, we stated, "That criminal gang involvement is an element of the crime does not open the door to unlimited expert testimony.”
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
We have addressed the use of gang expert testimony in five recent cases:
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 730 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 730 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
A new trial “is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury’s decision.” (internal citation omitted).
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-39 (Minn.2007); -73 (Minn.2005); , 611—13 (Minn.2003).
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. Martinez 725 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2007
State v. Martinez 725 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2007
We have considered the admissibility of gang expert testimony in four recent cases:
State v. Medal-Mendoza 718 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
State v. Medal-Mendoza 718 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
State v. Valtierra 718 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
State v. Valtierra 718 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
Therefore, regardless of whether expert testimony embraces an ultimate issue, “[t]he ‘ultimate question of admissibility’ for expert testimony is whether the expert’s testimony will help the trier of fact in evaluating evidence or resolving factual issues.” ().
State v. Jackson 714 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2006
Amundson v. State 714 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Amundson v. State 714 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Kelly v. Ellefson 712 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 2006
Kelly v. Ellefson 712 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 2006
Further, we have stated in a previous opinion that “the state should not be permitted to launder inadmissible hearsay evidence, turning it into admissible evidence by the simple expedient of passing it through the conduit of purportedly ‘expert opinion.’ ”
State v. Schuster 709 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Schuster 709 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Schmidt 701 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Schmidt 701 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Lopez-Rios 669 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2003
State v. Lopez-Rios 669 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2003
With regard to proffered gang-expert testimony, district courts have the responsibility of scrutinizing such testimony, “preferably outside the presence of the jury, ‘and excluding] it where irrelevant, confusing, or otherwise unhelpful.’ ” ().