Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis

ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. Unlike the majority, I would affirm the court of appeals’ holding that the district court erred when it (1) used our Frye-Mack standard to exclude plaintiffs expert testimony on repressed-memory theory, and (2) granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant religious organizations. I would hold that in this action based on alleged child sexual abuse, the admissibility of expert testimony regarding repressed-memory theory must be determined under the relevant provisions of Rule 702 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence.

I reach the…