DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Miles, 585 N.W.2d 368.

68 citing documents.

  • State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Tze Thao 634 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Tze Thao 634 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Fedor 628 N.W.2d 164 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Fedor 628 N.W.2d 164 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Rhode 628 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Rhode 628 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Carillo 623 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Carillo 623 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Wolf 605 N.W.2d 381 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Wolf 605 N.W.2d 381 Minn. 2000
    It is then the district court’s responsibility to “scrutinize the proffered expert testimony as it would other evidence and exclude it where irrelevant, confusing, or otherwise unhelpful.”
  • State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
    Sufficiency of Evidence In a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence our role is limited to “ascer *366 taining whether a jury could reasonably find the defendant guilty, given the facts in evidence and the legitimate inferences which could be drawn from those facts.”
  • State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
    The admission of expert testimony is within the broad discretion accorded a trial court, and rulings regarding “materiality, foundation, remoteness, relevancy, or the cumulative nature of the evidence” may be reversed only if the trial court clearly abused its discretion.
  • State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999