Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 4/25/2006

State v. Wembley

Citations

712 N.W.2d 783
2006 Minn. App. LEXIS 58
2006 WL 1072773

How courts have described this case

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

holding that expert’s testimony violated vouching prohibition but was not unfairly prejudicial because the jury was able to independently judge child witness’s credibility
holding that there was no unfair prejudice because a video-taped interview provided the jury with an independent basis of knowledge
holding that an expert violated the rule against vouching but did not cause unfair prejudice because a video-taped interview provided the jury with an independent basis of knowledge
stating that “[a]n assignment of error in a brief based on ‘mere assertion’ and not supported by argument or authority is waived”
stating that alleged error not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious
stating that assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Shumaker, Lansing, Halbrooks

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

15 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.