Skip to main content

State v. Ross

Citations

  • 451 N.W.2d 231
  • 1990 Minn. App. LEXIS 137
  • 1990 WL 7666

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that admission of unfounded expert testimony was harmless error because a second qualified expert gave similar testimony
  • concluding that a child’s testimony was corroborated by her out-of-court statements, defendant’s opportunity to commit the crime, and the consistency of the child’s descriptions
  • finding that evidence was sufficient to sustain a 5 conviction where the child’s testimony was corroborated “by the consistency of [the] descriptions of the acts”
  • first citing Minn. R. Evid. 611(a); then citing Manion v. Tweedy, 100 N.W.2d 124, 130 (Minn. 1959)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wozniak, Forsberg, Norton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.