Legal Opinion

State v. Edstrom

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 21, 2010No. A10-912PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*108OPINION

HUDSON, Judge.

The state appeals the district court’s pretrial rulings granting respondent’s request for a Frye-Mack hearing regarding urine testing, denying the state’s motion to exclude expert testimony, and excluding from evidence respondent’s urine test result. Because we conclude that the district court did not err in holding a Frye-Mack hearing or abuse its discretion in denying the state’s motion to exclude expert testimony, but that the district court abused its discretion by excluding respondent’s urine test result, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  2. State v. MacKSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  3. State v. AmosSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
  4. State v. MahkukSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
  5. Goeb v. TharaldsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. TanksleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
  2. Dereje v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API