Cited by

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

90 citing documents.

State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
3 “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 and citation omitted); (holding that reversal requires “apparent error”).
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
State v. Farnsworth 738 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 2007
State v. Farnsworth 738 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 2007
*373 The voluntariness of a confession is reviewed de novo as a question of law based on “all factual findings that are not clearly erroneous.”
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Wembley 712 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Wembley 712 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(an expert may not testify as to the coercive effects of an interrogation on a particular defendant because that is a jury question); -30 (Minn. 1995) (an expert may describe the nature of schizoid-personality disorder in general, but whether the defendant fit the
State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
See Koskela, d at 630 (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting expert testimony to general information about the nature of schizoid personality disorder rather than specifically assessing the defendant, because whether the defendant fit the disorder profile was a question for the jury); (holding that the trial court was within its discretion in excluding expert testimony about the effects of coercive interrogation on a particular defendant,, saying that this was a q
State v. Wright 686 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Wright 686 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Vance 685 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Vance 685 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Plantin 682 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Plantin 682 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“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 and citation omitted); (holding reversal requires “apparent error”).
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Pirsig 670 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Pirsig 670 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. DeShay 669 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2003
State v. Lopez-Rios 669 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2003
State v. Lopez-Rios 669 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2003
State v. DeShay 669 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2003
We have been “very reluctant to allow experts to testify about matters that are generally for the jury’s determination.”
State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
State v. Marshall 642 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Marshall 642 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of D.B.X. 638 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of D.B.X. 638 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
An appellate court “review[s] the voluntariness of a confession de novo as a question of law based on “all factual findings that are not clearly erroneous.” cert.
State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
However, “[n]o event can be perfectly reenacted.”
State v. Vue 606 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Vue 606 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See, (citing Myers, d at 609-10 ), cert.