Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hall, 406 N.W.2d 503.

66 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. William Gray Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. William Gray Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In contrast, the supreme court has stated that, “in cases where a sexual assault victim is an adolescent, expert testimony as to the reporting conduct of such victims and as to continued contact by the adolescent with the assailant is admissible in the proper exercise of discretion by the [district] court.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State v. Hall , see State v. Reyes , 3 (Minn. App. 2017) (“Because the opinion testimony was limited to whether certain characteristics were common in cases dealing with the sexual abuse of adolescents , we conclude that the testimony was within Hall’s parameters and that the district court di
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The supreme court has stated that, “in cases where a sexual assault victim is an adolescent, expert testimony as to the reporting conduct of such victims and as to continued contact by the adolescent with the assailant is admissible in the proper exercise of discretion by the trial court.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 503, 504 (Minn. 1987) (victim babysat defendant’s children); d 596, 597 (Minn. App. 2008) (defendant was the victim’s direct supervisor at work), rev. 11 denied (Minn. Jul.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The Minnesota Supreme Court’s offers guidance on this issue.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(quotation omitted); (holding that in cases of child sexual assault, “expert testimony as to the reporting conduct of such victims and as to continued contact by the adolescent with the assailant is admissible in the proper exercise of discretion” by the district court).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Three years later, the supreme court considered an appeal in which the appellant was convicted of engaging in first-degree criminal sexual conduct toward a child who was 14 years old.
Carlos Avelino Contreras, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
discretion.” State v. Sandberg , (quotation omitted) (concluding that a 15-year veteran detective who had investigated over 500 cases of child abuse was sufficiently qualified to testify that his experience demonstrated that children will often not report sexual abuse and about the settings in which they typically report when they do); (holdi ng that in cases of child sexual assault, “expert testimony as to the reporting conduct of such victims and as to continued contact by the adolescent with
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The admission of expert testimony “lies within the sound discretion of the [district] court.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
D E C I S I O N “The admissibility of expert testimony lies within the sound discretion of the [district] court.” State v. Hall
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A17-1995 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The admissibility of expert testimony lies within the sound discretion of the [district] court.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Edwin Gochingco Reyes 890 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Edwin Gochingco Reyes 890 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The admissibility of expert testimony lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
State of Minnesota v. Blake Adam Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Blake Adam Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding “that expert testimony about counterintuitive behaviors of child- or adolescent-victims of sexual assault could aid jurors in their fact-finding”); (“[I]n cases where a sexual assault victim is an adolescent, [general] expert testimony as to the reporting conduct of such victims and as to continued contact by the adolescent with the assailant is admissible in the proper exercise of discretion by the trial court.
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Danton Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Danton Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (“It is within the trial court’s discretion to admit expert testimony concerning the behavioral characteristics typically displayed by adolescent sexual assault victims.”); (“It is within trial court’s discretion to admit expert testimony concer
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (holding that admission of expert testimony regarding 12 reporting conduct of an adolescent sexual-assault victim is within the discretion of the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Jason DeWayne Kirk Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason DeWayne Kirk Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (permitting testimony regarding battered woman syndrome because it would “help explain a phenomenon not within the understanding of an ordinary lay person”); (permitting testimony regarding behavioral characteristics frequently seen in adolescent victims of sexual abuse).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (stating that “we hold that in cases where a sexual assault victim is an adolescent, expert testimony as to the reporting conduct of such victims .
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Osma Mardoqueo Escho Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Osma Mardoqueo Escho Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[I]n cases where a sexual assault victim is an adolescent, expert testimony as to the reporting 7 conduct of such victims .
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
(“[I]n cases where a sexual assault victim is an adolescent, [general] expert testimony as to the reporting conduct of such victims and as to continued contact by the adolescent with the assailant is admissible in the proper exercise of discretion by the trial court....”)
State v. Hakala 763 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hakala 763 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Fero 747 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Fero 747 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-04, 506 (Minn.1987) (reinstating criminal-sexual-conduct conviction based in part on fact that appellant held a position of authority over the victim, a babysitter hired to watch his children); (affirming criminal-sexual-conduct convictions based in part on app
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
Compare Mack, d at 768 (applying Frye to hypnotically-induced testimony), (applying Frye and excluding the results of a personality assessment), (holding that expert testimony on battered woman syndrome is admissible); (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony concerning the behavioral characteristics typically displayed by adolescent victims of sexual assault); (holding that expert testimony about the emotional and psychological ch
In Re the Welfare of K.A.S. 585 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Welfare of K.A.S. 585 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(holding admission of expert testimony not erroneous where expert described typical traits and characteristics of sexually abused children); (determining district court did not abuse discreti
State v. Grecinger 569 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1997
State v. Grecinger 569 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1997

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by