Legal Opinion

State v. Dixon

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided November 5, 2012No. A12-0193PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

STONEBURNER, Judge.

Appellant was charged with first-degree burglary based primarily on finger- and palm-print evidence collected at the scene. Appellant requested a Frye-Mack hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence that he is the source of the prints found. After a four-day Frye-Mack hearing, the district court concluded that the state had met its burden to establish that friction-ridge-print identification using the ACE-V methodology is generally accepted by experts in the field as reliable and that the examiner in this case complied with the appropriate standards and…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  2. State v. MacKSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  3. People v. JenningsIllinois Supreme Court · 1911
  4. State v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  5. State v. KolanderSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. People v. O.D.California Court of Appeal · 2013
  2. State v. HightowerMissouri Court of Appeals · 2017
  3. State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard ThomasCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
  4. Lewis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2015
  5. State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon MickelsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API