Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. MacKgreen2 sentences2009See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923) (requiring that the scientific principle or test about which an expert is to testify be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community); see also State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764, 768-69, 772 (Minn.1980) (accepting the Frye standard and requiring that the particular evidence derived from that test must have a foundation that is scientifically reliable). 2007I reach that conclusion without needing to resolve the “debate” about the “currency contamination theory.” But were I to reach that issue, I would conclude that, by definition, the existence of the debate precludes the use of dog sniff evidence under our application of the Frye-Mack test for scientific evidence, which requires that the scientific principle be “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764, 767 (Minn.1980) (quoting from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923)). | 4 | 4 |
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences2009See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923) (requiring that the scientific principle or test about which an expert is to testify be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community); see also State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764, 768-69, 772 (Minn.1980) (accepting the Frye standard and requiring that the particular evidence derived from that test must have a foundation that is scientifically reliable). 2007I reach that conclusion without needing to resolve the “debate” about the “currency contamination theory.” But were I to reach that issue, I would conclude that, by definition, the existence of the debate precludes the use of dog sniff evidence under our application of the Frye-Mack test for scientific evidence, which requires that the scientific principle be “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764, 767 (Minn.1980) (quoting from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923)). | 3 | 6 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2012Under Mack , the proponent of particular evidence derived from the application of the scientific principle or test must “ ‘establish that the test itself is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.’ ” Id. at 814 (quoting State v. Moore, 458 N.W.2d 90, 98 (Minn.1990)). 6 “The trial court determines whether the Frye-Mack standard has been satisfied by means of a pretrial hearing. 2002See Goeb, 615 N.W.2d at 814 ; State v. Moore, 458 N.W.2d 90, 97-98 (Minn.1990). | 3 | 4 |
Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Companygreen2 sentences2014As the Dahlberg court stated, “the facts on which the [district] court acts in granting a temporary injunction are, by the nature of the situation, provisional and . . . the injunctive authority exercised will continue only until a more scientific analysis of the problem is made possible by trial on the merits.” 272 Minn. at 274 , 137 N.W.2d at 321 . 2014As the Dahlberg court stated, “the facts on which the [district] court acts in granting a temporary injunction are, by the nature of the situation, provisional and . . . the injunctive authority exercised will continue only until a more scientific analysis of the problem is made possible by trial on the merits.” 272 Minn. at 274 , 137 N.W.2d at 321 . | 2 | 3 |
Goeb v. Tharaldsongreen2 sentences2012Id. at 809. 2012Under Mack , the proponent of particular evidence derived from the application of the scientific principle or test must “ ‘establish that the test itself is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.’ ” Id. at 814 (quoting State v. Moore, 458 N.W.2d 90, 98 (Minn.1990)). 6 “The trial court determines whether the Frye-Mack standard has been satisfied by means of a pretrial hearing. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Dillegreen2 sentences2000Moore, 458 N.W.2d at 98 (quoting State v. Dille, 258 N.W.2d 565, 567 (Minn.1977)). 1990A proper foundation for a scientific test requires the “proponent of a * * * test [to] establish that the test itself is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.” State v. Dille, 258 N.W.2d 565, 567 (Minn.1977). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Haugegreen2 sentences2016Similarly, in State v. Barkley, 144 N.C.App. 514 , 551 S.E.2d 131 (2001), the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that “[o]nce the blood was lawfully drawn from [appellant’s] body, he no longer had a possessory interest in that blood.” Barkley, 551 S.E.2d at 135 ; see also State v. Hauge, 103 Hawaii 38 , 79 P.3d 131 (2003); State v. Sanders, Nos. 93-2284-CR, 93-2286-CR, 1994 WL 481723 at *5 (Wis.Ct.App. 2016Similarly, in State v. Barkley, 144 N.C.App. 514 , 551 S.E.2d 131 (2001), the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that “[o]nce the blood was lawfully drawn from [appellant’s] body, he no longer had a possessory interest in that blood.” Barkley, 551 S.E.2d at 135 ; see also State v. Hauge, 103 Hawaii 38 , 79 P.3d 131 (2003); State v. Sanders, Nos. 93-2284-CR, 93-2286-CR, 1994 WL 481723 at *5 (Wis.Ct.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Roman Nosegreen1 sentence2012When the scientific technique that produces the evidence is no longer novel or emerging, then the pretrial hearing should focus on the second prong of the Frye-Mack standard.” Roman Nose, 649 N.W.2d at 819 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Kruegergreen1 sentence2009“Minnesota adheres to the Frye-Mack standard to determine the admission of expert testimony based on scientific techniques and principles.” McDonough v. Allina Health Sys., 685 N.W.2d 688, 694 (Minn.App.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Verdegreen2 sentences2006See Commonwealth v. Verde, 444 Mass. 279 , 827 N.E.2d 701, 705 (2005) (holding that drug certificates “merely state the results of a well-recognized scientific test determining the composition and quantity of the substance” and are within the state public records hearsay exception); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 634-36 (2004) (holding a report not testimonial and within public records exception because it was prepared by agency that is not law enforcement); State v. Cao, 626 S.E.2d 301, 305 (N.C.Ct.App.2006) (holding that lab reports are nontestimonial business records only whe 2006See Commonwealth v. Verde, 444 Mass. 279 , 827 N.E.2d 701, 705 (2005) (holding that drug certificates “merely state the results of a well-recognized scientific test determining the composition and quantity of the substance” and are within the state public records hearsay exception); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 634-36 (2004) (holding a report not testimonial and within public records exception because it was prepared by agency that is not law enforcement); State v. Cao, 626 S.E.2d 301, 305 (N.C.Ct.App.2006) (holding that lab reports are nontestimonial business records only whe | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thackaberrygreen2 sentences2006Jan. 17, 2006); Oregon v. Thackaberry, 194 Or.App. 511 , 95 P.3d 1142, 1145 (2004) (finding that lab report may be similar to a business record), rev. denied (Or. 2006Jan. 17, 2006); Oregon v. Thackaberry, 194 Or.App. 511 , 95 P.3d 1142, 1145 (2004) (finding that lab report may be similar to a business record), rev. denied (Or. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huu the Caogreen2 sentences2006See Commonwealth v. Verde, 444 Mass. 279 , 827 N.E.2d 701, 705 (2005) (holding that drug certificates “merely state the results of a well-recognized scientific test determining the composition and quantity of the substance” and are within the state public records hearsay exception); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 634-36 (2004) (holding a report not testimonial and within public records exception because it was prepared by agency that is not law enforcement); State v. Cao, 626 S.E.2d 301, 305 (N.C.Ct.App.2006) (holding that lab reports are nontestimonial business records only whe 2006See Commonwealth v. Verde, 444 Mass. 279 , 827 N.E.2d 701, 705 (2005) (holding that drug certificates "merely state the results of a well-recognized scientific test determining the composition and quantity of the substance" and are within the state public records hearsay exception); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 634-36 (2004) (holding a report not testimonial and within public records exception because it was prepared by agency that is not law enforcement); State v. Cao, 626 S.E.2d 301, 305 (N.C.Ct.App.2006) (holding that lab reports are nontestimonial business records only whe | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dedmangreen2 sentences2006See Commonwealth v. Verde, 444 Mass. 279 , 827 N.E.2d 701, 705 (2005) (holding that drug certificates “merely state the results of a well-recognized scientific test determining the composition and quantity of the substance” and are within the state public records hearsay exception); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 634-36 (2004) (holding a report not testimonial and within public records exception because it was prepared by agency that is not law enforcement); State v. Cao, 626 S.E.2d 301, 305 (N.C.Ct.App.2006) (holding that lab reports are nontestimonial business records only whe 2006See Commonwealth v. Verde, 444 Mass. 279 , 827 N.E.2d 701, 705 (2005) (holding that drug certificates “merely state the results of a well-recognized scientific test determining the composition and quantity of the substance” and are within the state public records hearsay exception); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 634-36 (2004) (holding a report not testimonial and within public records exception because it was prepared by agency that is not law enforcement); State v. Cao, 626 S.E.2d 301, 305 (N.C.Ct.App.2006) (holding that lab reports are nontestimonial business records only whe | 1 | 1 |
State v. Olhausengreen1 sentence2004State v. Olhausen, 669 N.W.2d 385, 393 (Minn.App.2003). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kolandergreen2 sentences2002In our decision in State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 221-22 , 52 N.W.2d 458, 465 (1952), we adopted the standard for the admissibility of evidence obtained from new scientific techniques that was set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923), which requires “general acceptance ■ in the particular field in which [the scientific principle or discovery] belongs.” Frye, 293 F. at 1014 . 2002In our decision in State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 221-22 , 52 N.W.2d 458, 465 (1952), we adopted the standard for the admissibility of evidence obtained from new scientific techniques that was set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923), which requires “general acceptance ■ in the particular field in which [the scientific principle or discovery] belongs.” Frye, 293 F. at 1014 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Freemangreen1 sentence2001See also State v. Freeman, 531 N.W.2d 190, 197 (Minn.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences1993Jonathan Barnard, Proof of Hospital-Performed Blood Alcohol Tests in Evidence, 9 Am.Jur.Trial Advoc. 43 (1985); see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (trial court must determine “reliability” of theory or test); State v. Jobe, 486 N.W.2d 407, 419 (Minn.1992) (admissibility of a scientific test requires a showing that the scientific technique has gained general acceptance among experts in the field). 1993Jonathan Barnard, Proof of Hospital-Performed Blood Alcohol Tests in Evidence, 9 Am.Jur.Trial Advoc. 43 (1985); see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (trial court must determine “reliability” of theory or test); State v. Jobe, 486 N.W.2d 407, 419 (Minn.1992) (admissibility of a scientific test requires a showing that the scientific technique has gained general acceptance among experts in the field). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jobegreen1 sentence1993Jonathan Barnard, Proof of Hospital-Performed Blood Alcohol Tests in Evidence, 9 Am.Jur.Trial Advoc. 43 (1985); see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (trial court must determine “reliability” of theory or test); State v. Jobe, 486 N.W.2d 407, 419 (Minn.1992) (admissibility of a scientific test requires a showing that the scientific technique has gained general acceptance among experts in the field). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bottgreen2 sentences1990“The question of proper foundation is largely one for the discretion of the trial court * * State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 334 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 51 (1976). . 1990“The question of proper foundation is largely one for the discretion of the trial court * * State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 334 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 51 (1976). . | 1 | 1 |
Village of Blaine v. Independent School District No. 12green2 sentences1987Village of Blaine v. Independent School District No. 12, 265 Minn. 9, 13 , 121 N.W.2d 183, 187 (1963) (cited in Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274 , 137 N.W.2d 314, 321 (1965)). 1987Village of Blaine v. Independent School District No. 12, 265 Minn. 9, 13 , 121 N.W.2d 183, 187 (1963) (cited in Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274 , 137 N.W.2d 314, 321 (1965)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Barkley
green
2 sentences2016Similarly, in State v. Barkley, 144 N.C.App. 514 , 551 S.E.2d 131 (2001), the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that “[o]nce the blood was lawfully drawn from [appellant’s] body, he no longer had a possessory interest in that blood.” Barkley, 551 S.E.2d at 135 ; see also State v. Hauge, 103 Hawaii 38 , 79 P.3d 131 (2003); State v. Sanders, Nos. 93-2284-CR, 93-2286-CR, 1994 WL 481723 at *5 (Wis.Ct.App. 2016Similarly, in State v. Barkley, 144 N.C.App. 514 , 551 S.E.2d 131 (2001), the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that “[o]nce the blood was lawfully drawn from [appellant’s] body, he no longer had a possessory interest in that blood.” Barkley, 551 S.E.2d at 135 ; see also State v. Hauge, 103 Hawaii 38 , 79 P.3d 131 (2003); State v. Sanders, Nos. 93-2284-CR, 93-2286-CR, 1994 WL 481723 at *5 (Wis.Ct.App. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. King
green
2 sentences2016In People v. King, 232 A.D.2d 111 , 663 N.Y.S.2d 610 (N.Y.App.Div.1997), a New York court held' that “[p]rivacy' concerns are no longer relevant once the sample has already lawfully been removed from the body, and the scientific analysis of a sample does not involve any further search.” King, 663 N.Y.S.2d at 614 . 2016In People v. King, 232 A.D.2d 111 , 663 N.Y.S.2d 610 (N.Y.App.Div.1997), a New York court held' that “[p]rivacy' concerns are no longer relevant once the sample has already lawfully been removed from the body, and the scientific analysis of a sample does not involve any further search.” King, 663 N.Y.S.2d at 614 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Wright
green
2 sentences1971Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” United States v. Wright, 17 U.S.C.M.A. 183 , 37 C.M.R. 447 (1967), involved the review of a general court-martial. 1971Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” United States v. Wright, 17 U.S.C.M.A. 183 , 37 C.M.R. 447 (1967), involved the review of a general court-martial. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.