Testimony – Personal Inferences

jennifersteen//February 3, 2014//

Listen to this article

Appellant challenged his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that (1) the District Court abused its discretion by allowing a police officer to offer opinion testimony; (2) the District Court failed to give proper jury instructions; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the officer to testify that a photo of appellant depicted a scar on the right side of appellant’s face. The officer did not offer an opinion at all; he was describing a photograph that the prosecutor had asked him about. Affirmed.

A12-1953 State v. Jackson (Hennepin County)

Click for Full Text

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event