Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ritt, 599 N.W.2d 802.

90 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Expert testimony can be helpful “if it explains a behavioral phenomenon not within the understanding of an ordinary lay jury.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
n internalized false confessions and “the phenomenon of confabulation, which involves [a witness] speculating as to what happened.” Haywood contends that the proposed expert testimony differs from evidence of false confessions “based on police coercion.” An appellate court will reverse a decision to exclude expert testimony if the district court “clearly abused its discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The admission of expert testimony is within the broad discretion accorded [to] a [district] court, and rulings regarding materiality, foundation, remoteness, relevancy, or the cumulative nature of the evidence may be reversed only if the [district] court clearly abused its discretion.” State v. Ritt , (quotation and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The supreme court has made clear it is “very reluctant to allow experts to testify about matters that are generally for the jury’s determination and are susceptible to cross -examination.” State v. Ritt
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
George Lanoue, et al., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We merely note that experiments are admissible if they are conducted in “circu mstances substantially similar to those existing in the case at issue.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, -94 (Minn. 2000) (holding that district court erred by admitting non-testifying expert 10 statements that were inadmissible hearsay and “improper expert testimony”); (“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.”) (quotation omitted).
Sherwood Forest, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
5 discretion.” State v. Ritt , (quotation and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“Evidence helpful to the jury in fulfilling its responsibilities is admissible.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Prince Antonio Dequante Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Prince Antonio Dequante Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The admission of expert testimony is within the broad discretion accorded [to] a [district] court, and rulings regarding materiality, foundation, remoteness, relevancy, or the cumulative nature of the evidence may be reversed only if the [district] court clearly abused its discretion.” (quotation and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The admission of expert testimony is within the broad discretion accorded a [district] court, and rulings regarding materiality, foundation, remoteness, relevancy, or the cumulative nature of the evidence may be reversed only if the [district] court clearly abused its discretion.” (quotation and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Kirby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Kirby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Danton Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Danton Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Expert-witness testimony “The admission of expert testimony is within the broad discretion accorded [to] a [district] court, and rulings regarding materiality, foundation, remoteness, relevancy, or the cumulative nature of the evidence may be reversed only if the district court clearly abused its discretion.” (quotation and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Nathan Rud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Nathan Rud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The admission of expert testimony is within the broad discretion accorded [to] a [district] court, and rulings regarding materiality, foundation, remoteness, relevancy, or the cumulative nature of the evidence may be reversed only if the [district] court clearly abused its discretion.” (quotation and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jason DeWayne Kirk Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason DeWayne Kirk Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An appellate court “review[s] the voluntariness of a 6 confession de novo as a question of law based on all factual findings that are not clearly erroneous.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Barry Lee Jacobson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Barry Lee Jacobson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See State v. 15 Ritt, (noting that although an interrogation “may have been unpleasant” for the defendant, “there [was] little indication that her will was overborne”).
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Elizabeth Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Elizabeth Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The admission of expert testimony is within the broad discretion accorded [to] a [district] court, and rulings regarding materiality, foundation, remoteness, relevancy, or the cumulative nature of the evidence may be reversed only if the [district] court clearly abused its discretion.” (quotation and citations omitted).
State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(stating that reversal of evidentiary rulings requires “apparent error”).
State v. Edstrom 792 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Edstrom 792 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“The admission of expert testimony is within the broad discre-, tion accorded a [district] court, and rulings regarding materiality, foundation, remoteness, relevancy, or the cumulative nature of the evidence may be reversed only if the [district] court clearly abused its discretion.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Zabawa 787 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2010
State v. Zabawa 787 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2010
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. PTACEK 766 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. PTACEK 766 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“The admission of expert testimony is within the broad discretion accorded a [district] court, and rulings regarding materiality, foundation, remoteness, relevancy, or the cumulative nature of the evidence may be reversed only if the [district] court clearly abused its discretion.” (quotation and citation omitted).
State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
State v. Hakala 763 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hakala 763 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
may be reversed only if the [district] court clearly abused its discretion.” (citations omitted); (stating that reversal requires “apparent error”).
State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008