Haakanson v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding such evidence inadmissible because prejudicial effect of profile evidence based on grooming process outweighed probative value
• trial court erred in permitting prosecution to present evidence relating to certain characteristics common to child sexual abusers
• upon expressing concern jury may place undue emphasis on expert's sex offender profile testimony court held evidence sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal
• state trooper not qualified to give testimony regarding a child sex offender profile because he was not a member of a relevant group of experts in the mental health field
• “We hold that the prosecution may not introduce a profile to show that the defendant is more likely to have committed an offense because the defendant fits within that profile. To admit this testimony at the beginning of trial was clearly erroneous.”
• ‘We hold that the prosecution may not introduce a profile to show that-the defendant is more likely to have committed an offense because the defendant fits within that profile. To admit this testimony at the beginning of trial was clearly erroneous.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).