People v. Nepras

Defendant was convicted of burglary with the intent to commit a theft. Court did not err in barring Defendant's expert's testimony to show that, at the time he entered the laundromat, he could not form the specific intent to commit a theft, because expert was not present when Defendant entered the laundromat, and because that would have usurped the province of the trier of fact. The lack of direct evidence did not justify admission of the otherwise prohibited expert testimony. (JORGENSEN and BRENNAN, concurring.)