Legal Opinion

State v. Maurer

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 6, 1992No. C3-91-1994PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WAHL, Justice.

We granted review in this case for the limited purpose of addressing the issue of whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in allowing the prosecutor to elicit testimony from several state’s witnesses that complainant in this rape prosecution appeared to be “sincere” when she told the witnesses that she had been raped by defendant.

We agree with the court of appeals’ conclusion that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony in question. State v. Maurer, 488 N.W.2d 834 (Minn.App.1992). Generally, it is objectionable for the state on direct to elicit any opinion…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. MyersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  2. State v. CaronSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  3. State v. FaderSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  4. State v. MaurerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Van Buren v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
  2. Corky Joe Maurer v. Minnesota Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1994
  3. Corky Joe Maurer v. Minnesota Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API