An expert hired by the defendant to testify that the defendant was telling the truth when he denied the charge is something we would have to allow defendants to do if we are going to allow the prosecution to hire experts to testify that the victim was telling the truth . The Sixth Amendment to the Bill of Rights carries a constitutional guaranty of a fair trial for the defendant, not the state. The defendant citizen is at all times presumed innocent. The state is not presumed to be prosecuting a guilty person who simply has yet to admit it. The scales have to be balanced in favor of the defendant or slightly tipped in the defendant's favor.
All penal statutes are to be construed strictly against the state and in favor of the defendant.
I concur in the result, meaning conviction, because I can accept the trial court's reasoning that the defendant, through cross- examination, opened the door for the prosecution to engage in the questions and answers at issue. But I do not want this affirmance to be any kind of signal that the above opinions elicited from experts are proper. Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. Whoever, with intent to commit a crime, does an act which is a substantial step toward, and more than preparation for, the commission of the crime is guilty of an attempt to commit that crime, and may be punished as provided in subdivision 4. Substantial bodily harm.