# State v. Saldana

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · August 31, 1982 · 324 N.W.2d 227

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9655686

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Camilo SALDANA, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** August 31, 1982
- **Citations:** 324 N.W.2d 227; 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1764
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Peterson
- **Judges:** Peterson, Wahl
- **Cited by:** 154 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9655686

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that it was error for the trial court to admit expert testimony on "rape trauma syndrome” to prove that a victim had been raped, stating that "[r]ape trauma syndrome is not the type of scientific test that accurately and reliably determines whether a rape has occurred”…
- holding that expert’s conclusion that victim was “raped” was a legal conclusion which was of no use to the jury and explaining that “opinions involving a legal analysis or mixed questions of law and fact are deemed to be of no use to the jury”
- holding that it was reversible error to allow opinion testimony from a sexual assault counselor on whether the victim had "typical post-rape symptoms and behavior of rape victims" and on whether the victim was telling the truth
- stating that expert opinions concerning a witness’s capacity to perceive the world around him or her “are generally inadmissible because such opinions invade the jury’s province to make credibility determinations.”
- noting that a counselor for sexual assault victims, who had a bachelor’s degree in psychology and social work but no medical education or training, was unqualified to determine whether a person could differentiate between reality and fantasy or detect whether a person was tell…

## Opinion text

PETERSON, Justice
(concurring specially)-
I concur in the result, based upon the impermissible testimony of Ms. Dreyer that the victim had not fantasized or fabricated her story, and in overruling State v. Cox, 172 Minn. 226 , 215 N.W. 189 (1927), to the extent it would approve such testimony.
WAHL, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9655686. Public record. Not legal advice.