## Facts

- Chia James Vue and M.V., both Hmong immigrants, lived together as partners for many years though they were not legally married.
- In February 1998, M.V. obtained an order for protection (OFP) against Vue.
- On June 5, 1998, M.V. reported that Vue raped her on four occasions between February and May 1998, after the OFP issued.
- Vue was charged with four counts of criminal sexual conduct, four counts of violating an OFP, and one count of engaging in a pattern of harassing conduct.
- Vue’s defense asserted the sexual contact was consensual and the accusations were motivated by jealousy relating to his relationship with another wife.
- The prosecution offered a police officer as an expert on Hmong culture to give jurors “context” for credibility, including delayed reporting and intra-clan pressures.
- Over objection, the trial court admitted the officer’s testimony describing Hmong culture as male-dominated, with pervasive male aggression, and suggesting Hmong women may be reluctant to report abuse.
- M.V. also testified about Hmong clan structure and stated it was inappropriate in the culture to seek help outside the clan and that she faced ostracism for reporting.
- A jury convicted Vue of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, three counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, four counts of OFP violations, and one count of engaging in a pattern of harassing conduct.
- Vue appealed, challenging (among other issues) the admission of the cultural expert testimony; the appellate court resolved the appeal on that ground.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting broad “Hmong culture” expert testimony that risked unfair prejudice by inviting guilt determinations based on ethnic and cultural generalizations rather than case-specific evidence.
2. Whether any error in admitting the expert testimony was harmless given the centrality of credibility and consent to the verdicts.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed Vue’s convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the cultural expert testimony was improperly admitted because it relied on stereotypes and created an undue risk that the jury would infer guilt from generalized cultural characteristics.
- The court concluded the error was not harmless because credibility was central and the testimony likely affected the jury’s evaluation of witnesses and the charged conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Expert testimony is admissible only if it assists the jury on facts in issue and the witness is qualified; otherwise it should be excluded.
- Even relevant expert evidence must be excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice or misleading the jury.
- Expert testimony that attributes violent or abusive tendencies to an ethnic or cultural group may function as improper propensity evidence by encouraging jurors to infer conduct from group membership.
- When the prosecution’s case turns largely on witness credibility, admission of unfairly prejudicial expert testimony bearing on credibility is more likely to be reversible, non-harmless error.

## Conclusion

The appellate court ordered a new trial because the prosecution’s broad cultural expert testimony portrayed Hmong men as generally aggressive and male-dominant, creating a substantial risk the jury convicted based on stereotyping rather than individualized proof, and the error likely influenced the credibility determinations central to the case.


State v. Vue, 606 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)