Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lopez-Rios, 669 N.W.2d 603.

77 citing documents.

State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
at 887-88 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)
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:
State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
State v. Crow 730 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
State v. Crow 730 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
The district court, which has broad discretion to admit expert testimony, must also determine whether the testimony is relevant, and whether its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value.
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).
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. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“But the state may argue that particular witnesses were or were not credible.”
State v. Wright 719 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
State v. Wright 719 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
which is what the prosecutor did at Wright’s trial.
State v. Jackson 714 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2006
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
Vouching occurs “when the government implies a guarantee of a witness’s truthfulness, refers to facts outside the record, or expresses a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Moore 699 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2005
State v. Moore 699 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2005
In addition, this court has stated that “[wjhile the evidentiary rules do not bar all expert testimony concerning the ultimate issue, a district court may exclude ultimate issue testimony * * * when the testimony would merely tell the jury what result to reach.”
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
cases we decided after Bur-rell’s trial but while Burrell’s case was pending on direct appeal.