context: Opinions under Rule 701 that render a determination as to whether a defendant's conduct falls within a legal standard are not permitted because they are not helpful to the jury.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 281 Minn. 102, 106
citation_a.parenthetical: concluding that police officer's opinion regarding fault in an accident was an improper invasion of jury's province and that the officer's opinion testimony regarding speed was improper because the officer did not witness the accident
citation_a.sentence: See State v. Post, 512 N.W.2d 99, 102 (Minn.1994) (stating that a witness would not be allowed to offer an opinion as to whether or not a defendant acted in self-defense); see also State v. Larson, 389 N.W.2d 872, 876 (Minn.1986) (concluding that a lay witness’s letter stating that the witness believed defendant’s actions did not fall within statutory definition of crimi nal sexual conduct was inadmissible under Minn. R. Evid. 701); Pierson v. Edstrom, 281 Minn. 102, 106, 160 N.W.2d 563, 565 (1968) (concluding that police officer’s opinion regarding fault in an accident was an improper invasion of jury’s province and that the officer’s opinion testimony regarding speed was improper because the officer did not witness the accident).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 512 N.W.2d 99, 102
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that a witness would not be allowed to offer an opinion as to whether or not a defendant acted in self-defense
citation_b.sentence: See State v. Post, 512 N.W.2d 99, 102 (Minn.1994) (stating that a witness would not be allowed to offer an opinion as to whether or not a defendant acted in self-defense); see also State v. Larson, 389 N.W.2d 872, 876 (Minn.1986) (concluding that a lay witness’s letter stating that the witness believed defendant’s actions did not fall within statutory definition of crimi nal sexual conduct was inadmissible under Minn. R. Evid. 701); Pierson v. Edstrom, 281 Minn. 102, 106, 160 N.W.2d 563, 565 (1968) (concluding that police officer’s opinion regarding fault in an accident was an improper invasion of jury’s province and that the officer’s opinion testimony regarding speed was improper because the officer did not witness the accident).