author:
ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice.
      PAGE, Justice ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice

text:
    STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jason Alexander MacLENNAN, Appellant.
    No. A03-2048.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    Aug. 18, 2005.

      Office of the MN State Public Defender, Theodora Gaitas, Assistant State Public Defender, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.
    Mike Hatch, Minnesota State Attorney General, John B. Galus, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, Janelle Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, St. Cloud, MN, for Respondent.
   OPINION

ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice.

Shortly after midnight on January 14, 2003, Kenneth MacLennan was shot and killed at his home in Saint Cloud, Minnesota. Kenneth’s son, 17-year-old Jason Alexander MacLennan, was charged and subsequently indicted by a Stearns County grand jury for the first-degree premeditated murder of his father. Jason Mac-Lennan asked for both a speedy trial and a change of venue, and as a result a jury trial was held in September 2003 in Duluth, Minnesota. MacLennan claimed that he killed his father in self-defense and asked the district court to admit expert testimony regarding battered child syndrome to demonstrate his state of mind at the time of the shooting. The court declined to admit expert testimony on battered child syndrome, but allowed MacLennan to present evidence about his relationship with his father. The jury found MacLennan guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder. The court then convicted MacLennan of first-degree murder and sentenced him to life in prison. On appeal, MacLennan alleges that (1) the court erred in failing to admit expert testimony on battered child syndrome, and (2) the state committed prosecutorial misconduct during its closing argument. We affirm.

The Shooting

Appellant, Jason MacLennan, was the only child of Kenneth and Betty MacLen-nan. The MacLennan family lived in Florida for most of Jason’s childhood, but in late spring 1999, the family moved to Canada to allow Betty to be close to her family during the final months of her battle against breast cancer. Betty died from the disease on July 13,1999. Shortly after Betty’s death, Kenneth and Jason returned to Florida. In the spring of 2002, after accepting a new job, Kenneth relocated from Florida to Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where Jason then joined his father after the 2001-02 school term ended.

Kenneth’s job in Saint Cloud required him to travel extensively, which meant that Jason was home alone much of the time. In the late afternoon of Monday, January 13, 2003, Kenneth was scheduled to return home from a business trip to Great Britain. Earlier that day, Jason chose not to go to school; rather, he and several friends gathered at the MacLennan home. Most of the friends had left by 2:00 p.m., around the time when their parents would expect them to return home from school, but Matt Moeller, Jason’s closest friend, and Kyle Melberg stayed behind.

Between 2:00 and 2:15 p.m., Jason and Melberg decided to drive separately to the local Outback Steakhouse restaurant, where Jason, Melberg, and Moeller all worked. After Jason and Melberg picked up either their paychecks or tips, they drove around Saint Cloud in Melberg’s car. The two eventually made their way to Melberg’s home, where they played video games.

Meanwhile, Moeller remained at the MacLennan home. According to Moeller, he stayed at the home in accordance with a plan he and Jason devised to kill Kenneth MacLennan. Moeller had his .22 caliber rifle with him as he waited inside the home for Kenneth to return from his business trip. Moeller testified that the plan was for him to shoot Kenneth when Kenneth entered the home. Moeller waited for Kenneth to arrive until approximately 5:00 p.m., at which point Moeller decided that he was not capable of following through with the plan. Moeller testified that he then took the rifle to his car and drove back to his family’s home.

At 5:19 p.m., Jason received a call on his cell phone that originated from his father’s cell phone. The state asserts that Jason had expected the voice on the other end of the call to be that of Moeller, confirming Kenneth’s death. Instead, the call was from Kenneth, who insisted that Jason return home immediately. JasGn then asked Melberg to take him home. While Mel-berg drove, Jason placed a call to Moeller. According to Moeller, Jason questioned him about his failure to follow through with their plan to kill Kenneth. Jason’s testimony differed from that of Moeller on this point. Jason testified that he called to tell Moeller that Kenneth had returned home and to arrange for Jason and Moel-ler to meet later that evening so that Jason and his father would not have to spend time together.

When Jason and Melberg arrived at the MacLennan home, Jason asked Melberg to accompany him into the home and Melberg agreed. When they entered the home, Kenneth told Jason that he had discovered an empty beer bottle in the home. Kenneth then instructed Jason to retrieve his car from the parking lot at the Outback Steakhouse restaurant and return home immediately. Melberg testified that he had never met Kenneth before and was unable to discern whether Kenneth’s demeanor during this encounter was abnormal. Melberg then took Jason to the restaurant to pick up his car, after which they returned to their respective homes.

After Jason arrived home, he and Kenneth had an argument about the empty beer bottle that Kenneth had discovered. According to Jason, his father degraded and insulted him during the argument. Jason testified that after the argument, Kenneth left to have dinner at a local restaurant and Jason retreated to his bedroom, which was located in the basement.

When Kenneth returned from dinner, he went to the basement to smoke a cigar and play pool. Jason testified that while Kenneth was in the basement, he entered Jason’s bedroom, stood by the bed, and began yelling at him. After Kenneth left Jason’s room, Jason called Moeller to ask him to sneak out and drive to Jason’s home to keep him company. Both boys testified that this was not an unusual request because Moeller frequently sneaked out to visit Jason. Initially Moeller protested, saying that his parents would not allow him to leave, but after some discussion and persuasion from Jason, Moeller agreed to sneak out later that night. According to Moeller, Jason asked him to bring his .22 caliber rifle with him.

Moeller arrived at the MacLennan home at approximately 10:00 p.m. and parked a short distance away from the home. As usual, Moeller entered the home through the basement door, but this time he carried his rifle with him. Jason met Moeller in the basement. Moeller testified that Jason again asked him why he had not carried out the shooting earlier that day, and Moeller responded that he did not want to kill Jason’s father. Moeller then slid his rifle under Jason’s bed, and the boys left to drive around the city in Moel-ler’s car. According to Moeller, while they were driving, the two of them talked about shooting Kenneth. In contrast, Jason testified that he and Moeller talked about typical teenage things, such as girls, movies, and school.

After a couple of hours, Jason and Moel-ler drove back to the MacLennan home, and Moeller again parked a short distance away from the home. The boys went inside the home and sat in the living room. After a while, Moeller retrieved his rifle from underneath Jason’s bed and brought it up to the living room. The boys then took the rifle up the stairs and approached Kenneth’s bedroom where they listened for sounds that would indicate whether Kenneth was awake or asleep. After a few moments, they returned to the living room.

Jason testified that Moeller then dared Jason to take the rifle back up the stairs by himself. When Jason took the rifle up the stairs, Moeller went down to the basement, put on a pair of Jason’s boots, walked out of the basement door and around to the front of the home. Moeller then walked up to the front door and rang the doorbell. According to Jason, he could see Moeller through the windows surrounding the front door. Jason testified that he attempted to get Moeller’s attention to show Moeller that he had successfully completed the dare, but Moeller rang the doorbell without looking through the front door windows.

Upon hearing the doorbell, Kenneth came out of his bedroom and walked toward the stairway where he saw Jason on the landing with Moeller’s rifle. Jason testified that this time he thought his father “was really going to hurt me, and that he wasn’t joking anymore.” Jason also testified that when Kenneth “started coming at me, I was just so scared. ⅜ * ⅜ I was afraid that he was going to hurt me, that I didn’t know what he was going to do to me.” Jason testified further that he shot his father “[j]ust to protect myself and get out of that room — to get away from him.” According to Jason’s testimony, he did not recall the number of times that he shot his father. Forensic evidence presented at trial revealed that Jason shot Kenneth six times.

After the shooting, Jason went downstairs and opened the front door to let Moeller into the home. Moeller testified that he did not see any of the events before or during the shooting because he did not look through the front door windows. Moeller testified that when he entered the home he picked up shell casings from the shooting. While Moeller picked up the shell casings, Jason put on a glove and ransacked Kenneth’s bedroom. Jason also took Kenneth’s wallet and watch from the room. According to Moeller, Jason took these actions to make it appear as though an intruder had shot Kenneth.

Before Jason and Moeller left the Mac-Lennan home, they went to Jason’s bedroom so that Jason could select a change of clothes. They then walked to Moeller’s car and drove to the Moeller family cabin, which was approximately 10 to 15 minutes from the MaeLennan home. At the cabin, Moeller showed Jason a swamp-like area where Jason disposed of Kenneth’s wallet and watch and the clothes that Jason was wearing during the shooting. Moeller kept his rifle in his car. Jason and Moel-ler then drove back to the MaeLennan home. Jason testified that Moeller asked him to wait a few minutes before he called the police because this time delay would allow Moeller time to drive home and sneak back into his bedroom. Jason took a shower while Moeller drove home. When Moeller arrived home, he took his rifle with him into his bedroom and attempted to alter the interior barrel of the rifle with an alien wrench in order to prevent the rifle from being connected with the bullets used to shoot Kenneth.

Jason called 911 after he got out of the shower. The police arrived within minutes and asked Jason about the shooting. Jason told the officers that he did not know how or why his father had been shot, and also that both he and his father routinely left the front door unlocked, thus implying that an intruder must have been responsible for the shooting. At trial, Jason testified that he lied to the police officers because he feared they would not believe that he shot his father in self-defense.

Shortly after beginning the investigation, the police took Jason and Moeller into custody and charged them with Kenneth’s murder. Moeller pleaded guilty to second-degree intentional murder. Jason was certified to be tried as an adult and indicted by a grand jury for first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder. Jason pleaded not guilty and asserted that he killed his father in self-defense. In support of his claim of self-defense, Jason sought to admit expert testimony on battered child syndrome to explain the ill effects of his father’s emotional abuse and the potential effect that such abuse might have on his perception of fear. Jason then made an offer of proof on the dynamics of the Mae-Lennan family relationships and the need for expert testimony on battered child syndrome.

The Relationships within the MaeLen-nan Family

Before trial, Jason made an offer of proof to demonstrate the basis of his claim that Kenneth severely emotionally abused him. The offer of proof'included potential testimony from Jason’s family in Canada, as well as testimony from friends and neighbors from Florida. All of the witnesses were prepared to testify about the relationships between Kenneth and Betty, between Jason and Betty, and between Jason and Kenneth.

The testimony offered to demonstrate the type of relationship that Kenneth and Betty had during their marriage related primarily to allegations that Kenneth both physically and sexually abused Betty. One of Betty’s friends from Florida was prepared to testify that Betty confided in her about Kenneth’s abusive behavior and his insatiable desire for sex. Betty’s sister, Lillian Barker, was also prepared to testify that Betty confided in her about Kenneth’s abusive behavior. The testimony about Kenneth and Betty’s relationship was offered to support Jason’s testimony about the abusive nature of his parents’ relationship.

Jason’s friends and family were willing to testify about the relationship between Jason and Kenneth, both while Betty was alive and after her death. Several of Jason’s neighbors from Florida were prepared to testify that Kenneth neglected Jason. They would have testified that during Betty’s two-year treatment for breast cancer, which included two mastectomies and radiation therapy, Kenneth remained in Switzerland while Jason was left alone to serve as Betty’s primary caretaker. In particular, Jason’s former girlfriend, Molly Harris, was willing to testify that Jason had difficulty staying awake at school and paying attention in class because he expended so much energy caring for his mother. Other friends were also willing to testify about Jason’s care and concern for his mother during her illness.

The proffered testimony about the relationship between Jason and his father focused primarily on Jason’s fear of his father and his father’s bad temper. The parents of one of Jason’s friends were willing to testify about at least two instances when they observed a distinct change in Jason’s demeanor when he was in Kenneth’s presence. According to them, Jason would go to great lengths to avoid being alone with Kenneth, and when in Kenneth’s presence, Jason was uncharacteristically docile and hypersensitive.

With respect to Kenneth’s temper, a close colleague and tennis partner of Kenneth’s was prepared to testify that Kenneth had a short temper and a strong dissatisfaction with his son. Jason’s aunt, Lillian Barker, was also prepared to testify about her own experience with Kenneth’s anger and emotional abusiveness that occurred when she visited Jason and Kenneth in Florida after Betty’s death. The testimony of Jason’s friends and family was offered to support his self-defense claim and as the basis for his request for expert testimony on battered child syndrome.

Expert Testimony on Battered Child Syndrome

Jason sought to offer expert testimony on battered child syndrome to describe how battered child syndrome might explain his actual fear for his personal safety at the time of the shooting. In response to Jason’s request, the district court determined that the expert testimony would need to be presented at a Frye-Mack hearing before trial because battered child syndrome presented a novel scientific theory in Minnesota.

At the Frye-Mack hearing, Jason offered the testimony of Dr. Michael Aram-bula, a clinical psychiatrist with a specialty in forensic psychiatry. Dr. Arambula testified that battered child syndrome is a term that initially was used by physicians to describe the existence of physical evidence of abuse in children, but the term has evolved to encompass the psychological symptoms suffered by children who have been battered. According to Dr. Ar-ambula, few children who suffer from battered child syndrome actually attack their abusers. But Dr. Arambula testified that when a child with battered child syndrome does attack his abuser, the attack generally does not occur at the time of the conflict; rather, it occurs when the child has the opportunity to attack. According to Dr. Arambula, in the rare instance when a child attacks his parent/abuser, the attack will usually involve excessive force because the child is unable to control his or her emotions.

To rebut Dr. Arambula’s testimony, the state called Drs. Carl Malmquist and Susan Phipps-Yonas. Dr. Malmquist is a clinical psychiatrist with specialties in forensic and child psychiatry. According to Dr. Malmquist, battered child syndrome is generally accepted as a medical diagnosis used by physicians to show that a young child has been physically or sexually abused. But according to Dr. Malmquist, in the psychiatric community battered child syndrome is a developing theory about the potential psychological reactions that children may suffer as a result of abuse. Dr. Malmquist stated that in the psychiatric community battered child syndrome “is not, at this point, well tested and confirmed enough to gain credibility that there is such an accepted syndrome.” Dr. Malmquist also testified that it is not proper to correlate the psychological effects of abuse on children to the psychological effects on women in abusive intimate relationships because there are any number of variables that control how women and children will react to abuse.

The testimony of Dr. Phipps-Yonas was consistent with that of Dr. Malmquist. Dr. Phipps-Yonas described battered child syndrome as a diagnostic tool of physicians used to detect the presence of physical or sexual abuse in very young children. According to Dr. Phipps-Yonas, it is improper to correlate the effect of abuse on children to the effect of abuse on women because the reactions of battered children “are all over the board,” based on any number of factors. Dr. Phipps-Yonas did acknowledge that battered woman syndrome is generally accepted in the psychiatric and psychological community. According to Dr. Phipps-Yonas, battered woman syndrome is generally accepted because it has been shown that battered women experience a specific set of symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. But Dr. Phipps-Yonas testified that such a set of symptoms has not been shown in battered children at a sufficient rate of occurrence to support the same general acceptance in the community that battered woman syndrome enjoys.

After hearing the expert testimony, the district court concluded that Jason had not met his burden under the Frye-Mack standard. The court’s decision was based upon the failure of Dr. Arambula’s testimony to demonstrate general acceptance of battered child syndrome in the psychiatric and psychological communities and the insufficiency of the evidence offered to demonstrate that Jason suffered severe emotional abuse. Although the court did not allow expert testimony on battered child syndrome at trial, it permitted Jason to offer evidence of his relationship with his father. The only testimony permitted at trial about the relationship between Betty and Kenneth was Jason’s own testimony about his parents’ relationship.

The Trial

The trial began on September 8, 2003, in Duluth. During the course of trial, the district court allowed evidence to be admitted about the relationship between Jason and Kenneth. Much of Jason’s direct testimony was about his relationship with both his mother and father. Jason testified that his parents slept in separate bedrooms, on opposite sides of their home. He testified that after arguments between his mother and father, his mother would retreat to his room and sleep on the floor at the foot of his bed or near the bedroom door. Jason also testified that during his parents’ arguments, he could hear his mother being physically abused by his father. Jason never reported that his father abused his mother, and he did not tell any of his friends, neighbors, or family members about the situation at home.

During his testimony, Jason described the relationship with his father as being “verbally” abusive and distant. Jason testified that his father physically abused him once when he was in tenth grade. According to Jason, when his father caught Jason smoking a cigarette, he took the cigarette and used it to burn Jason’s arm, but Jason did not report this incident to anyone. Jason also testified that during an argument he had with his father in the kitchen of their Florida home, his father grabbed a kitchen knife, held it at his side, and used it to threaten Jason.

The district court permitted Jason to call his aunt Lillian Barker to testify about her encounter with Kenneth when she visited Jason and Kenneth in Florida after Betty’s death. Barker testified that Kenneth became irate with her because money was missing from the home and because she opened a bottle of Kenneth’s wine without his permission during Barker’s dinner with a friend. According to Barker, she was so distraught by the incident that she spent the remainder of her visit with a friend in the neighborhood, and then returned to her home in Canada.

Several of Jason’s friends also testified about the relationship between Jason and Kenneth. Molly Harris stated that she witnessed several arguments during which Kenneth berated and degraded Jason. Molly’s parents, Paul and Debra Harris, testified about several incidents when Jason appeared to be fearful of his father. In one case, according to Mr. Harris, Jason stayed at the Harris home past his curfew, but was too afraid to call home and pleaded with Mr. Harris to call Kenneth for him. Startled by Jason’s reaction, Mr. Harris agreed to make the call. Mrs. Harris testified that Jason would often come to the Harris home distraught and sullen after arguments with Kenneth. Both Mrs. Harris and Molly testified about an incident when Jason attempted to commit suicide in their home. According to Mrs. Harris and Molly, Jason attempted to smother himself with a pillow, but Molly called for her mother’s help and Mrs. Harris was able to stop Jason’s suicide attempt. None of the witnesses who testified on Jason’s behalf recalled that Jason had ever expressed an interest in either killing Kenneth or in obtaining any of his inheritance from Kenneth.

Jason testified that his relationship with his father became even more strained when a woman from Switzerland, Laurence Morand, moved into their Florida home in November 1999. According to Jason, Kenneth initially introduced Mo-rand as Jason’s nanny, but Jason subsequently became aware that Morand was in fact Kenneth’s girlfriend. They had met and began dating while Kenneth was living and working in Switzerland. According to Jason, he and Kenneth argued because Jason disliked Morand and felt that she was attempting to replace his mother.

To rebut the testimony of Jason’s witnesses, the state offered Morand’s testimony about the interactions between Jason and Kenneth that she observed while living with them in Florida between November 1999 and the summer of 2002. Because of Kenneth’s frequent business travel, Jason was often left at home either alone or with Morand. According to Mo-rand, both Kenneth and Jason had terrible tempers and argued often. However, Mo-rand testified that she never thought that Jason was afraid of his father, because Jason was willing to shout back at Kenneth during their arguments.

The state also offered testimony from Jason’s friends in Saint Cloud. In contrast to the testimony of Jason’s friends from Florida, his friends from Saint Cloud testified that Jason frequently discussed a desire to have his father killed and that Jason would make frequent remarks about the amount of money he would inherit when his father died. Moeller and another friend testified that Jason often encouraged them to help him obtain a handgun. Jason’s friends from Saint Cloud also testified that they thought Jason was joking about killing his father and never took his words or actions seriously.

During closing argument, the state frequently referred to the shooting as either a “premeditated ambush execution,” an “ambush execution,” or an “execution.” Although Jason did not object to these statements during the trial, on appeal he asserts that these statements constitute prosecutorial misconduct and are sufficient grounds for reversal. Throughout its case, the state painted a vivid picture of Jason as a spoiled child who saw his good fortune slipping away as he neared his eighteenth birthday. The state asserted that Jason was a child who sought to immediately reap the reward of his million-dollar inheritance by killing his father. The state made the following statement to the jury during closing argument about Jason’s self-defense claim:

[Jason] had to come up with something new. So he told you of a story that he thought no one could refute.
Abuse. Mom is gone. Dad isn’t here to defend himself. Maybe Laurence [Mo-rand] can’t get back into the country. I will say I was defending myself. And, if nothing else, maybe the jury will feel sorry for me. Maybe if I can make my dad look bad enough, they will agree with me that my dad deserved to die. That is a defense; isn’t it? Yeah, I killed him. It was a good idea. He deserved it.
Self-defense? * * * To believe that, folks, you are going to have to ignore the evidence. And to call that self-defense, you are going to have to ignore the law.

Jason alleges that both the improper description of his self-defense claim and the inappropriate characterization of the shooting unfairly prejudiced the jury against him.

The jury found Jason MacLennan (hereinafter “MacLennan”) guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and the lesser-included offense of second-degree intentional murder. The district court convicted MacLennan of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced him to life in prison. On appeal MacLennan raises two issues: (1) whether the court committed error when it excluded expert testimony on battered child syndrome, and (2) whether the state’s comments during closing argument constitute prosecutorial misconduct sufficient to warrant the reversal of MacLennan’s conviction.

I.

The admissibility of expert testimony on battered child syndrome offered to prove an element of self-defense is an issue of first impression for our court. The proper standard to apply in assessing the admissibility of novel scientific evidence is the Frye-Mack standard. See State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764 (Minn.1980). We recently reaffirmed our adherence to the Frye-Mack standard in Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800, 813-14 (Minn.2000). Under the Frye-Mack standard, a novel scientific theory may be admitted if two requirements are satisfied. Goeb, 615 N.W.2d at 814. The district court must first determine whether the novel scientific evidence offered is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. Id. Second, the court must determine whether the novel scientific evidence offered is shown to have foundational reliability. Id. As with all expert testimony, the evidence must comply with Minn. R. Evid. Rules 402 and 702; that is, it must be relevant, helpful to the trier of fact, and given by a witness qualified as an expert. Goeb, 615 N.W.2d at 814. The proponent of the novel scientific evidence bears the burden of establishing the proper foundation for the admissibility of the evidence. Id. at 816.

As an initial matter, we must determine whether the Frye-Mack standard is the proper standard to apply to the expert testimony on battered child syndrome offered in this case. Admittedly, on appeal both parties framed the issue of the admissibility of the evidence about battered child syndrome in terms of the Frye-Mack standard. Nonetheless, while we have previously applied Frye-Mack to evidence falling into the general field of psychology, we have not applied Frye-Mack in cases addressing the admissibility of “syndrome” evidence offered to explain behavior. In State v. Kraushaar, we specifically declined to decide “whether expert psychological evidence should be scrutinized under the Frye standard.” 470 N.W.2d 509, 513 (Minn.1991).

In previous cases, we have addressed the admissibility of “syndrome” evidence under Minn. R. Evid. 702 without citing the Fry e-Mack standard. For example, in State v. Hennum, we addressed whether expert testimony on battered woman syndrome was admissible in the context of the defendant’s claim of self-defense. 441 N.W.2d 793, 797-99 (Minn.1989). In holding that expert testimony regarding the general characteristics of battered woman syndrome was admissible, we did not use the Frye-Mack standard. Id. Instead, we analyzed whether the evidence met the “helpfulness” test under Rule 702. Id. at 798. By applying Rule 702 and declining to use the Frye-Mack standard, we concluded that the expert testimony was admissible because it would be helpful to the jury by explaining “a phenomenon not within the understanding of an ordinary lay person.” Id. at 798.

A review of decisions from other courts indicates that some state courts have applied Frye to “social science evidence” such as battered child syndrome without addressing the applicability of the test. See, e.g., Smullen, 844 A.2d at 448; State v. Janes, 121 Wash.2d 220, 850 P.2d 495, 501-03 (1993). Some other state courts have specifically addressed whether Frye is the appropriate standard and have held that Frye is not applicable to social science evidence that offers an explanation for behavior. See People v. Beckley, 434 Mich. 691, 456 N.W.2d 391, 403-04 (1990) (holding that when the purpose of behavioral science evidence is to offer an explanation for certain behavior, the Frye test is inapplicable); People v. Harlan, 222 Cal.App.3d 439, 449, 271 Cal.Rptr. 653 (Cal.App.1990) (holding that the Frye standard does not apply to an expert’s opinion on children’s reaction to molestation when her opinion was based on her clinical experience with child sexual abuse victims and her familiarity with professional literature in the area); State v. Borrelli, 227 Conn. 153, 629 A.2d 1105, 1111 (1993) (concluding that satisfaction of the Frye test is not a necessary precondition for the admission of expert testimony on battered woman’s syndrome); State v. McCoy, 179 W.Va. 223, 366 S.E.2d 731, 736 n. 9 (1988) (stating that Frye does not govern the admissibility of rape trauma syndrome testimony); People v. Hampton, 746 P.2d 947, 950-52 (Colo.1987) (holding that the rules of evidence, not Frye, govern the admissibility of expert testimony on rape trauma syndrome). We find the foregoing opinions from our sister states on the application of Frye to syndrome evidence to be informative.

The analysis adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in Beckley provides some basic guidance on how courts should approach battered child syndrome evidence. 456 N.W.2d at 403-04. In Beckley, the Michigan court held that the Frye test does not apply to behavioral science evidence and recognized that there is “a fundamental difference between techniques and procedures based on chemical, biological, or other physical sciences as contrasted with theories and assumptions that are based on the behavioral sciences.” Id. at 404. Beckley involved a consolidated appeal of two child sexual abuse cases in which experts testified regarding the circumstances and patterns of behavior typically exhibited by sexually abused children. The Michigan court explained that the concerns underlying its continued use of the Frye test for scientific evidence were not present when considering social science evidence. Specifically, that court stated that:

The ultimate testimony received on syndrome evidence is really only an opinion of the expert based on collective clinical observations of a class of victims. Further, the issues and the testimony solicited from experts is not so complicated that jurors will not be able to understand the “technical” details. The experts in each case are merely outlining probable responses to a traumatic event. It is clearly within the realm of all human experience to expect that a person would react to a traumatic event and that such reactions would not be consistent or predictable in all persons.

Beckley, 456 N.W.2d at 404. Thus, the Michigan court held that the Frye test is inapplicable to such evidence “so long as the purpose of the evidence is merely to offer an explanation for certain behavior.” Id.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has also decided a case that provides us with guidance on the proper method for determining the admissibility of social science evidence. Borrelli, 629 A.2d at 1110-11. As part of its case in chief in Borrelli, the state, in order to impeach the victim’s subsequent changed testimony, presented an expert witness on battered woman syndrome to provide an explanation for the victim’s recantation of an earlier statement about the abuse she suffered from her husband. Id. at 1110. In response, the defendant, who was the alleged abuser, argued that battered woman syndrome did not meet the Frye test requirements for admissibility. Id. The Connecticut court disagreed with the defendant and held that “satisfaction of the Frye test is not a necessary precondition for the admission of expert testimony on battered woman’s syndrome.” Id.

In its holding, the Connecticut Supreme Court noted that the Frye test is “appropriate when the experimental, mechanical or theoretical nature of the scientific evidence ha[s] the potential to mislead lay jurors awed by an aura of mystic infallibility surrounding scientific techniques, experts and the fancy devices employed.” Id. (citation omitted). The court continued, stating that “expert testimony need not satisfy the Frye test in cases where the jury is in a position to weigh the probative value of the testimony without abandoning common sense and sacrificing independent judgment to the expert’s assertions based on his special skill or knowledge.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). The court further stated that “where understanding of the method is accessible to the jury, and not dependent on familiarity with highly technical or obscure scientific theories, the expert’s qualifications, and the logical bases of his opinions and conclusions can be effectively challenged by cross-examination and rebuttal evidence.” Id. (citation omitted). Finally, and of critical importance in light of our opinion in Hennum, the Connecticut court noted that the state offered the expert testimony not to present an opinion that the victim was indeed a battered woman, but “in order to provide an interpretation of the facts that a lay jury might not have perceived because of its lack of experience with battered women.” Id.

The reasoning in Beckley and Bor-relli is helpful in deciding the instant case because the Michigan and Connecticut courts made an important distinction between scientific evidence derived from a specific test or diagnosis and expert testimony that offers an explanation for a person’s behavior. Beckley, 456 N.W.2d at 404; Borrelli, 629 A.2d at 1111; see also People v. Stoll, 49 Cal.3d 1136, 265 Cal.Rptr. 111, 783 P.2d 698, 710 (1989). The requirements of the Frye-Mack standard support such a distinction. A Frye-Mack analysis requires both general acceptance in the relevant scientific community and foundational reliability. Goeb, 615 N.W.2d at 810. To establish foundational reliability, the proponent of the novel scientific evidence is required to show that the evidence sought to be admitted was derived from a scientific test that is reliable and was administered in a manner that conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability. Id. at 814.

Unlike a case involving physical science such as DNA testing, in the area of “syndromes” experts do not administer a specific set of tests to discern whether a defendant suffers from either battered woman syndrome or battered child syndrome. Further, such experts may not testify about whether a particular defendant actually suffers from a syndrome. See Hennum, 441 N.W.2d at 799. Rather, experts on “syndromes” — including battered child syndrome — are only permitted to testify about the syndrome in a general manner, provided that the testimony is “helpful” to the jury. See id. Thus, expert testimony on syndromes, unlike DNA evidence or other physical science, is not the type of evidence that the analytic framework established by Frye-Mack was designed to address. Accordingly, we conclude that the Frye-Mack standard does not govern the admissibility of expert testimony on battered child syndrome.

II.

Because we have concluded that the Frye-Mack analytic framework is not suitable to battered child syndrome evidence, we must determine how courts are to determine the admissibility of this evidence. We conclude that courts should use Minn. R. Evid. 702 to discern whether this evidence would be helpful to the jury. See Hennum, 441 N.W.2d at 798-99. Under Rule 702, “[i]f scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” In discussing Rule 702, we have stated that:

The basic requirement of Rule 702 is the helpfulness requirement. If the subject of the testimony is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury and the testimony of the expert will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions about that subject which is within their experience, then the testimony does not meet the helpfulness test. In determining admissibility, of course, the trial court also may rely on those considerations expressed in Minn. R. Evid. 403. Thus, the court may exclude the testimony if the court concludes that it will confuse the jury. Needless to say, the trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether testimony by a qualified expert should be received.

State v. Helterbridle, 301 N.W.2d 545, 547 (Minn.1980).

Our holding in Hennum supports our conclusion. In Hennum, we relied on Rule 702 when we concluded that expert testimony on battered woman syndrome would “help to explain a phenomenon not within the understanding of an ordinary lay person.” 441 N.W.2d at 798. In Hen-num, we joined many other states that had previously grappled with the issue of the value and purpose of battered woman syndrome evidence. See id. Ultimately, we agreed with a majority of other jurisdictions that expert testimony on battered woman syndrome can help jurors understand the interpersonal dynamics involved in abusive relationships, something with which many jurors are unfamiliar. Id. In doing so, we acknowledged that the purposes for which other courts allowed testimony on battered woman syndrome were: (1) to dispel the common misconception that a normal or reasonable person would not remain in such an abusive relationship, (2) for the specific purpose of bolstering the defendant’s position and lending credibility to her version of the facts, and (3) to show the reasonableness of the defendant’s fear that she was in imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury. See id.

While acknowledging the value of battered woman syndrome evidence in Hen-num, we did not allow its unfettered admission. Rather, we stated that expert testimony on battered woman syndrome should be limited “to a description of the general syndrome and the characteristics which are present in an individual suffering from the syndrome.” Id. at 799. Experts would not be allowed to testify to the ultimate fact that the particular defendant actually suffers from the syndrome because this determination should be left to the trier of fact. Id. Finally, in addition to allowing general testimony by experts on the syndrome, we stated that each party could call witnesses to “testify to characteristics possessed by the defendant which are consistent with those found in someone suffering from battered woman syndrome.” Id.

There is no reason why our reasoning and analysis in Hennum should not apply with equal force to battered child syndrome. Like expert testimony on battered woman syndrome, we conclude that expert testimony on battered child syndrome may help to explain a phenomenon not within the understanding of an ordinary lay person. Within the framework of Rules 402 and 702, relevant evidence that helps explain the characteristics possessed by children who have been battered and outlines the probable responses to traumatic events would be allowed. See Beck-ley, 456 N.W.2d at 400-02. Such evidence, like battered woman syndrome evidence, would be helpful to jurors struggling to discern whether elements of charged crimes have been met.

As we did in Hennum, we limit expert testimony on battered child syndrome to a description of the general syndrome and the characteristics which are present in an individual suffering from the syndrome. See Hennum, 441 N.W.2d at 799. Each party may call witnesses to testify about characteristics possessed by the defendant that are consistent with those found in someone suffering from battered child syndrome. See id. But experts may not testify to the ultimate fact that the particular defendant suffers from battered child syndrome. See id. Our conclusion preserves our interest in allowing the jury to serve as fact finders, with the role of determining whether a particular defendant suffers from battered child syndrome, and does not allow that role to be usurped by experts. Therefore, we hold that the district court erred in analyzing MacLennan’s battered child syndrome expert evidence under the Frye-Mack standard.

Finally, we note that by concluding that expert testimony regarding battered child syndrome maybe helpful to the trier of fact, we join several other state courts taking a similar position. See In re Appeal in Maricopa County, 182 Ariz. 60, 893 P.2d 60, 62-63 (Ct.App.1994); Smullen, 844 A.2d at 445-50; State v. Hines, 303 N.J.Super. 311, 696 A.2d 780, 786 (App.Div.1997); State v. Nemeth, 82 Ohio St.3d 202, 694 N.E.2d 1332, 1341 (1998); Janes, 850 P.2d at 503; see also Perryman v. State, 990 P.2d 900, 904 (Okla.Crim.App.1999).

III.

Having held that the district court erred, we now must determine whether the court committed reversible error. When the admissibility of evidence is challenged on appeal, we defer to the district court’s exercise of discretion in the conduct of the trial, and we will not lightly overturn a district court’s evidentiary ruling. State v. Koskela, 536 N.W.2d 625, 629 (Minn.1995). On review, the offer of proof submitted by MacLennan and evaluated by the district court does not support the admission of the expert testimony on battered child syndrome. All evidence, including expert testimony, may be admitted only if it is relevant. Minn. R. Evid. 402. In this case, the offer of proof submitted by MacLennan did not establish the relevance of the expert testimony on battered child syndrome to MacLennan’s claim of self-defense. MacLennan’s offer of proof demonstrated a tense relationship between him and his father, but there was little demonstrable evidence of the type of relationship described by MacLennan’s own expert that would give rise to battered child syndrome. Therefore, we conclude that MacLennan did not meet his burden of establishing the relevance of the expert testimony on battered child syndrome to his claim of self-defense. Accordingly, we hold that, even though the district court applied the wrong standard, the court did not err when it excluded the proffered expert testimony on battered child syndrome.

IV.

MacLennan also asserts that he is entitled to a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct committed by the state during its closing argument. We note that while MacLennan now raises prosecutorial misconduct as a ground for reversal, he did not object to the alleged misconduct during the course of his trial. When a defendant alleges error for the first time on appeal, we apply the plain error standard of review. State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn.1998); see Johnson v. U.S., 520 U.S. 461, 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997). When assessing whether plain error occurred, we must determine whether (1) there was error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights. Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 740 (citing Johnson, 520 U.S. at 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544). If these three requirements are satisfied, the appellate court may correct the error only if the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d 433, 437 (Minn.2001) (quoting Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467, 117 S.Ct. 1544).

The specific conduct that MacLennan challenges consists of statements made by the state throughout the course of its closing argument. First, MacLennan challenges the state’s description of the shooting of his father as a “premeditated ambush execution,” an “ambush execution,” or an “execution.” MacLennan asserts that the state’s description of the shooting in this manner was calculated to appeal to the passions and prejudices of the jury.

We have consistently held that a “ ‘prosecutor must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant.’ ” State v. Ashby, 567 N.W.2d 21, 27 (Minn.1997) (quoting State v. Porter, 526 N.W.2d 359, 363 (Minn.1995)). In our view, the foregoing statements made by the state during its closing argument were dramatic characterizations of the shooting. Nevertheless, we are dissuaded from Mac-Lennan’s position because the evidence admitted at trial supported the state’s characterization of the murder. Although we do not condone the state’s choice of language, we conclude that its characterization of the murder was not error.

Second, MacLennan asserts that the state committed prosecutorial misconduct during the course of its closing argument by referring to his self-defense claim as an “abuse excuse.” It is well-settled that the state has a right to vigorously argue its case, Rairdon v. State, 557 N.W.2d 318, 324 (Minn.1996), but the state may not denigrate a particular type of defense, Ashby, 567 N.W.2d at 28. As part of the state’s right to vigorously argue its case, it may specifically argue that there is no merit to the particular defense, but it may not belittle the defense, either in the abstract or by suggesting that the defendant raised the defense because it was the only defense that may be successful. State v. Griese, 565 N.W.2d 419, 428 (Minn.1997) (quoting State v. Williams, 525 N.W.2d 538, 549 (Minn.1994)).

We conclude that when the state characterized MacLennan’s motivations for raising a defense of self-defense, it took unnecessary liberties that were not supported by the evidence. This conduct went beyond the scope of the state’s right to vigorously argue its case. Thus, the state’s denigration of MacLennan’s chosen defense was error and it was plain.

Having concluded that the state plainly erred in its denigration of MacLennan’s chosen defense, we must also consider whether that error affected his substantial rights. See Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 740-41. In order to show that the error has affected his substantial rights, the defendant must show that the error was prejudicial and that it affected the outcome of the case. Id. at 741. We consider this to be a heavy burden. Id. Error is prejudicial if there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct in question “would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” Id. (citing State v. Glidden, 455 N.W.2d 744, 747 (Minn.1990)).

After reviewing the evidence submitted at trial, we conclude that the jury would have reached the same verdict even if the prosecutor had not denigrated Ma-cLennan’s defense. The state introduced overwhelming evidence that MacLennan had planned to murder his father and that MacLennan killed his father in accordance with the plan. The state’s evidence showed that MacLennan lured his father out of the bedroom and shot him at least six times with a .22 caliber rifle. MacLen-nan then took several steps to cover up the crime, including ransacking his father’s bedroom and disposing of his bloodied clothes near the Moeller family’s cabin. The state’s evidence also showed that when police officers questioned MacLen-nan about the murder, he continued to conceal the crime by lying to the police officers about what had occurred that night. Furthermore, the district court permitted MacLennan to present considerable evidence in support of his self-defense claim, including details about the tumultuous relationship between him and his father. We conclude that, in light of the evidence presented at trial, the state’s characterization of MacLennan’s self-defense claim did not have a substantial impact on the jury’s verdict and did not affect MacLennan’s substantial rights. Accordingly, we hold that MacLennan is not entitled to a new trial.

Affirmed.

PAGE, Justice

(concurring).

Battered child syndrome as defined by the defense expert requires, in the first instance, a showing that the child was physically abused. As described by the state’s experts, a showing of either physical or sexual abuse of the child is required. Courts around the country that have addressed battered child syndrome as a defense also describe the syndrome as requiring physical or sexual abuse. State v. Smullen, 380 Md. 233, 844 A.2d 429, 450 (2004); State v. Nemeth, 82 Ohio St.3d 202, 694 N.E.2d 1332, 1335 (1998); State v. Janes, 121 Wash.2d 220, 850 P.2d 495, 501 (1993); Perryman v. State, 990 P.2d 900, 904 (Okla.Crim.App.1999); State v. Hines, 303 N.J.Super. 311, 696 A.2d 780, 785-86 (App.Div.1997); see also In re Appeal in Maricopa County, 182 Ariz. 60, 893 P.2d 60, 63 (Ct.App.1994). Absent allegations of the requisite physical or sexual abuse, there can be no prima facia showing that a child suffers from the syndrome. Here, the record does not contain the requisite allegations of either physical or sexual abuse. Therefore, there was no basis for the admission of any battered child syndrome evidence. Because there was no basis for the admission of any of the battered child syndrome evidence, I would leave for another day both the question of whether this court should formally recognize battered child syndrome as a defense and, if recognized, what method is to be employed by the trial court in analyzing the admission of expert testimony on the syndrome.

ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice

(concurring).

Because I conclude that the expert testimony on battered child syndrome was properly excluded by the district court, regardless of what standard the district court employed or should have employed to evaluate that expert testimony, I concur with the result reached by the majority opinion. I would leave for another day whether this court should formally recognize battered child syndrome.

      . Dr. C. Henry Kempe first described the concept of "battered child syndrome” in 1962. State v. Smullen, 380 Md. 233, 844 A.2d 429, 445 (2004) (citing C. Henry Kempe et al., The Battered Child Syndrome, 181 JAMA 105 (1962)). Dr. Kempe described battered child syndrome as "a clinical condition in young children who have received serious physical abuse, generally from a parent or foster parent.” Smullen, 844 A.2d at 445-46. It was this detailed analysis of the physical and psychological impact of recurrent abuse on children that led many states to pass mandatory reporting legislation. Merrilee R. Goodwin, Parricide: States are Beginning to Recognize that Abused Children Who Kill Their Parents Should be Afforded the Right to Assert a Claim of Self-Defense, 25 Sw. U. L. Rev. 429, 435 (1996). In Minnesota, we accepted Dr. Kempe’s formulation of battered child syndrome for use in the prosecution of physical and sexual child abuse cases. See State v. Loss, 295 Minn. 271, 204 N.W.2d 404 (1973).

      . At the district court, MacLennan directly argued that a Frye-Mack analysis was not required. On appeal, he only notes that Frye-Mack is "clumsy in the context of social science evidence” and that in cases involving social science theory this court "has expressed more concern about the helpfulness of the proffered testimony than the quantum of empirical data supporting the theory.”

      . State v. Borchardt, 478 N.W.2d 757 (Minn.1991) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony of "male sexual victimization”). Compare Mack, 292 N.W.2d at 768 (applying Frye to hypnotically-induced testimony), and State v. Anderson, 379 N.W.2d 70, 79 (Minn.1985) (applying Frye and excluding the results of a personality assessment), with State v. Hennum, 441 N.W.2d 793 (Minn.1989) (holding that expert testimony on battered woman syndrome is admissible); State v. Hall, 406 N.W.2d 503 (Minn.1987) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony concerning the behavioral characteristics typically displayed by adolescent victims of sexual assault); State v. Myers, 359 N.W.2d 604 (Minn.1984) (holding that expert testimony about the emotional and psychological characteristics often observed in children who are victims of sexual abuse was admissible); State v. Saldana, 324 N.W.2d 227 (Minn.1982) (holding that expert testimony on rape trauma syndrome was inadmissible).

      . At the time Hampton was decided, Colorado used the Frye standard. Subsequent to Hampton, Colorado adopted the Daubert rule for all expert scientific testimony. See People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68, 77 (Colo.2001).

      . Like Minnesota, the Michigan court has affirmed the validity of the Frye test, as opposed to the Daubert standard, for determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. Beckley, 456 N.W.2d at 403.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PAGE, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    The GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC AIR, INC., Defendant.
    No. A04-2439.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    Aug. 18, 2005.

      Edward F. Fox, Kevin P. Hickey, Scott J. Hoss, Bassford Remele, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.
    Timothy E. Branson, Angela M. Hall, Bryan C. Keane, Dorsey & Whitney, L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for Respondent.
    Sharon L. Van Dyck, Schwebel, Goetz, & Sieben, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Ami-cus Curiae Minnesota Trial Lawyer Ass’n.
   OPINION

PAGE, Justice.

This case arises from a certified question from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, which asks us to determine the potential liability of a party insured by an insolvent insurer when the claim against the party exceeds the $300,000 statutory maximum available from the Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Association (MIGA). We conclude that the insured party may be liable for any portion of the claim that constitutes the difference between the $300,000 available from MIGA and the liability limit of the insolvent insurer’s policy.

In this ease, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company seeks to recover nearly $2 million in consequential damages stemming from an incident involving an alleged malfunction in a pneumatic conveyance system purchased from Dynamic Air, Inc., a Minnesota corporation. Goodyear filed suit against Dynamic Air in Alabama state court, but the case was removed to federal court and transferred to the District of Minnesota. Following the federal court’s ruling on Dynamic Air’s motion for summary judgment, the claims remaining in this case are Goodyear’s claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of implied covenant of fitness for a particular purpose.

At the time of the incident, Dynamic Air had $1 million in primary coverage liability insurance and $6 million in excess-umbrella coverage from Reliance Insurance Company. Shortly after Goodyear filed suit, Reliance became insolvent. Following Reliance’s insolvency, MIGA took over Reliance’s obligation to defend Dynamic Air against Goodyear’s claims.

With MIGA’s authorization and without admitting liability, Dynamic Air made an offer of judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 68 in the amount of $300,000, the statutory maximum available from MIGA. See Minn.Stat. § 60C.09, subd. 3 (2004). Dynamic Air then moved the federal court to dismiss Goodyear’s claims as moot, asserting that the offer of judgment was made in the full amount of Dynamic Air’s potential liability under the MIGA Act. With the parties’ agreement, the federal court certified the following question to this court:

Whether under MinmStat. § 60C.09, Subd. 3, the party insured by the insolvent insurer is not liable to the claimant for any portion of a claim that constitutes the difference between the $300,000 statutory maximum and the liability limit of the insolvent insurer’s policy?

We reformulate the certified question to read as follows:

Whether, under Minn.Stat. § 60C.09, subd. 3, a party insured by an insolvent insurer may be liable to a claimant for any portion of the claim that constitutes the difference between the $300,000 statutory maximum available from the Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Association and the liability limit of the insolvent insurer’s policy.

See Minn.Stat. § 480.065, subd. 4 (2004) (stating that this court “may reformulate a question of law certified to it”). We answer the reformulated question in the affirmative.

Certified questions are questions of law that we review de novo. B.M.B. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 664 N.W.2d 817, 821 (Minn.2003). We also review the construction of statutes de novo. Am. Family Ins. Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn.2000).

We begin our discussion with a brief history of the MIGA Act. In 1969, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) undertook the effort to prevent failures of insurance companies from undermining public confidence in the insurance industry. See Proceedings of the NAIC, 1970-1 NAIC Proc. 251, 262 (1970). The NAIC recommended that each state create an insurance insolvency fund that would pay covered claims under certain insurance policies, minimize financial loss to claimants or policyholders because of the insolvency of an insurer, and create an association to assess the cost of such protection among insurers. See Post-Assessment Prop. & Liab. Ins. Guar. Assn Model Act § 2, reprinted in 3 NAIC Model Latus, Regulations & Guidelines (1997).

As a result, in 1971, the Minnesota legislature enacted the MIGA Act and created MIGA, an association made up of all insurers authorized to transact business in Minnesota. Act of Apr. 22, 1971, ch. 145, §§ 1-23,1971 Minn. Laws 277, 277-88; see MinmStat. § 60C.04 (2004). As enacted, the MIGA Act largely followed the model act developed by the NAIC. MIGA is funded by assessments levied on the member insurers in proportion to their “net direct written premiums,” the cost of which is passed on to policyholders. Minn.Stat. §§ 60C.06, subd. 1 (2004); 60C.18, subd. 1 (2002). The stated purposes of the MIGA Act are

to provide a mechanism for the payment of covered claims under certain insurance policies and surety bonds, to the extent provided in this chapter, minimize excessive delay in payment and to avoid financial loss to claimants or policyholders because of the liquidation of an insurer, and to provide an association to assess the cost of the protection among insurers.

Minn.Stat. § 60C.02, subd. 2 (2004). To effect these purposes, the Act is to be “liberally construed.” Id., subd. 3 (2004).

Under the Act, MIGA is “deemed the insurer to the extent of its obligation on the covered claims.” MinmStat. § 60C.05, subd. 1 (2004). A “covered claim” includes any unpaid claim that: (a) “arises out of and is within the coverage of an insurance policy issued by a member insurer if the insurer becomes” insolvent; (b) “arises out of a class of business which is not excepted from” the scope of the Act by section 60C.02; and (c) is made by, among others, a policyholder who was a resident of Minnesota “at the time of the insured event” or “a third party claimant under a liability policy” if the insured or third-party claimant was a resident of Minnesota at the time of the insured event. Minn. Stat. § 60C.09, subd. 1.

Reflecting the practical limitations that a guaranty association has, MIGA’s “[playment of a covered claim, whether upon a single policy or multiple polices of insurance, is limited to no more than $300,000,” regardless of the amount of coverage provided by the insolvent insurer. MinmStat. § 60C.09, subd. 3; see Postr-Assessment Prop. & Liab. Ins. Guar. Assn Model Act, supra, § 8(A)(1) cmt. “In no event is the association obligated to the policyholder or claimant in an amount in excess of the obligation of the insurer under the policy from which the claim arises.” MinmStat. § 60C.09, subd. 3. Therefore, MIGA’s payment obligation on a covered claim is limited to the lesser of the amount of coverage under the insolvent insurer’s policies or the statutory maximum of $300,000. Because the two Reliance policies involved here provide for a total of $7 million in coverage, MIGA’s payment obligation is limited to $300,000.

We have not interpreted the statutory language limiting covered claims and have not had occasion to consider the question raised here — whether the party insured by an insolvent insurer may be liable to a claimant for any portion of the claim that constitutes the difference between the $300,000 statutory maximum available from MIGA and the liability limit of the insolvent insurer’s policy. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has addressed this question on two occasions in published decisions. First, in Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. H & W Motor Express Co., the court of appeals described its understanding of the insured’s potential liability, stating: “If a claimant recovers the statutory maximum from [MIGA], the claimant cannot pursue the insured for the balance, except to the extent the policy issued by the insolvent insurer would not have covered the claim.” 507 N.W.2d 622, 624 (Minn.App.1993), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 22, 1993). In the more recent case of Van Guilder v. National Freight, Inc., the court of appeals stated that “[t]he party insured by the insolvent insurer is not liable for any portion of a claim that constitutes the difference between the $300,000 MIGA liability cap and the liability limit of the insolvent insurer’s policy.” 686 N.W.2d 339, 347 (Minn.App.2004), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 2004).

Relying heavily on the court of appeals’ statements in these cases, Dynamic Air asserts that the Act “fully protects the insured against covered claims to the extent of the limits of coverage afforded by the insured’s policy with its insolvent insurer.” Because Dynamic Air’s policies with Reliance would have covered Goodyear’s claims completely had Reliance not become insolvent, Dynamic Air contends that when MIGA stepped into the shoes of Reliance and offered to pay the statutory maximum of $300,000, MIGA satisfied the entire obligation of Reliance. Therefore, Dynamic Air maintains that Goodyear cannot pursue it for the difference between the $2 million in damages claimed and the $300,000 MIGA payment. According to Dynamic Air, this result reflects a reasonable balance of interests and safeguards the policyholder’s reasonable expectation of coverage.

Goodyear, on the other hand, asserts that “Dynamic Air ignores the fact that the purpose of the statute is to protect both claimants and insureds” and Dynamic Air’s interpretation of the MIGA Act favors “the interests of liable defendants over the rights of their victims.” Goodyear argues that the focus of the Act always has been how much MIGA will pay— not how little the wrongdoer must pay in excess of the Act’s statutory maximum— and the Act was not intended to shield defendants from direct liability to their victims. According to Goodyear, if the legislature had intended to limit the rights of injured persons or provide defendants with immunity, it would have done so explicitly, as it did in providing immunity to government entities with insolvent insurers. See Minn.Stat. § 3.736, subd. 8 (2004).

In answering the question of the insured’s potential liability for the difference between the $300,000 statutory maximum available from MIGA and the liability limit of the insolvent insurer’s policy, we look first to the statutory language. “Our primary objective in interpreting statutory language is to give effect to the legislature’s intent as expressed in the language of the statute.” Pususta v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 632 N.W.2d 549, 552 (Minn.2001); see Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2004).

Although the specific words of the MIGA Act do not answer the question of the insured’s obligation on claims that exceed the $300,000 payment cap, Dynamic Air’s position that it “is fully protected by the statutory liability cap” is based on its view of MIGA’s deemed obligation under the Act. According to Dynamic Air, the statute plainly states that MIGA is “deemed the insurer” and “assumes” the insolvent insurer’s obligations, citing Minn. Stat. § 60C.05, subd. 1(a), which provides that MIGA shall “[b]e deemed the insurer to the extent of its obligation on the covered claims.” (Emphasis added.) Dynamic Air reads this language to mean that MIGA is deemed the insurer to the extent of the insolvent insurer’s obligation on the covered claims. Because the insolvent insurer’s obligation on the covered claim is equal to the limits of coverage under the insurance policy, Dynamic Air argues that “[t]he only reasonable construction of this language is that the statutory protection is measured by the limits of the policy with the insolvent insurer.” Accordingly, Dynamic Air concludes that once MIGA makes its payment, the Act’s limitation on “payment of a covered claim” necessarily ends the insured’s liability to the claimant to the extent of the limits of the policy.

Goodyear, however, interprets section 60C.05, subdivision 1(a), to mean that MIGA is deemed the insurer only to the extent of MIGA’s obligation on the covered claims. We agree. Applying rules of grammar and giving the words of this section their common and approved meanings, we conclude that the word “its” in section 60C.05, subdivision 1(a), does not refer to the insolvent insurer, but rather to MIGA. See Minn.Stat. § 645.08(1), (3) (2004) (stating that we are to construe the words and phrases of a statute according to rules of grammar and common approved usage, and we restrict the meaning of general words by preceding particular words). Thus, the association is deemed the insurer only to the extent of MIGA’s limited payment obligation of $300,000.

Our conclusion regarding the limited role of MIGA is consistent with other provisions of the Act, which describe the association’s “substantial limitations and exclusions.” See MinmStat. § 60C.21, subd. 2 (2004). For example, if the insured’s deductible or self-insured retention under the insolvent insurer’s policy exceeds MIGA’s maximum payment obligation of $300,000, the association has no obligation on the claim. See Minn.Stat. § 60C.09, subd. 2(4) (stating that a “covered claim” does not include “any claims under a policy written by an insolvent insurer with a deductible or self-insured retention of $300,000 or more, nor that portion of a claim that is within an insured’s deductible or self-insured retention”). Similarly, if an insured’s consolidated net worth exceeds $25 million, the association has no obligation on the claim. See Minn.Stat. § 60.09, subd. 2(3) (stating that a “covered claim” does not include any claims “by an insured whose net worth exceeds $25,000,000”).

Even on covered claims, MIGA does not take the place of the insolvent insurer on all of the contractual obligations that the insolvent insurer had. As a creature of statute, MIGA has only those obligations imposed upon it by the MIGA Act. Once MIGA has paid a covered claim, its obligation on that claim is satisfied and its role as the deemed insurer is fulfilled. Accordingly, the Act does not provide the same level of protection to insureds that the policy issued by the insolvent insurer would afford had the insurer remained solvent. These limits are made clear by the notice that insurers are required to provide with every application for property and casualty insurance in this state. See Minn.Stat. § 60C.21, subd. 1 (2004). The required notice specifically advises policyholders not to rely on the protection provided by the association and states in part:

The financial strength of your insurer is one of the most important things for you to consider when determining from whom to purchase a property or liability insurance policy. It is your best assurance that you will receive the protection for which you purchased the policy. If your insurer becomes insolvent, you may have protection from the Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Association * * * but to the extent that your policy is not protected by the Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Association or if it exceeds the guaranty association’s limits, you will only have the assets, if any, of the insolvent insurer to satisfy your claim.

Minn.Stat. § 60C.21, subd. 2 (2004).

Having concluded that MIGA is deemed the insurer only to the extent of the association’s obligation on the covered claims, we next consider whether the $300,000 payment limitation provides any protection to the insured of an insolvent insurer with respect to the insured’s liability to a claimant. The language of the MIGA Act does not address this question. Therefore, we must go back to the law in existence before the enactment of the MIGA Act to ascertain the intent of the legislature. See Minn.Stat. § 645.16(5) (2004) (considering former law, including other law upon the same or similar subjects, as a factor for ascertaining legislative intent). In enacting statutes, we presume that the legislature acts with full knowledge of existing law. Minneapolis E. Ry. Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 247 Minn. 413, 418, 77 N.W.2d 425, 428 (1956). We generally presume that a statute is consistent with the common law and, if the legislature intends to enact a statute that abrogates the common law, the legislature will do so by express wording or necessary implication. In re Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 469, 60 N.W.2d 40, 45 (1953).

At common law, without the protection of an insurance policy, the party who is at fault for breaching a contract or violating a statutory duty bears the risk of loss from the claims arising from its action. An insurance policy essentially shifts the risk of loss from the insured to the insurer whereby the insurer assumes the risk of loss and undertakes to indemnify the insured against such loss. See 1 Lee R. Russ & Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance 3d § 1:9 (1995); see also Knutson Constr. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 396 N.W.2d 229, 233-34 (Minn.1986) (discussing risk exposure and risk shifting in construction projects). Under our case law, insurance policies are contracts and, unless there are statutory laws to the contrary, general principles of contract law apply. Epland v. Meade Ins. Agency Assocs., Inc., 564 N.W.2d 203, 207 (Minn.1997). Under contract law, for a consideration that usually is paid in money, the insurer promises to make a certain payment, usually of money, upon the destruction or injury of something in which the insured has an interest. 1 Russ & Segalla, supra, § 1:6. Regardless of the nature of the dispute between an insured and a claimant, the insurer is obligated to indemnify the insured according to the terms of the insurance contract. As such, the relationship between the insurer and the insured is generally that of debtor and creditor. 3 id. § 40:7. The insolvency and dissolution of an insurer “ipso facto terminates outstanding policies,” and the insurer is liable to the insured in damages for breaching the insurance contract. 1 id. § 6:1.

Because the loss sustained by the insured arises from the insured’s dealings with a third party, there are no principles in insurance law that would prevent the third party from pursuing its claims against the insured, regardless of whether or not the insurer is capable of indemnifying the insured. In other words, upon insolvency, the insurer is no longer in a position to assume the risk and indemnify its insured, and the risk of loss is shifted back to the insured, completely exposing the insured to the claims asserted by the third party even though such claims would have been covered by the policy issued by the insolvent insurer. The only remedy available to the insured is to assert a claim against the assets of the insolvent insurer.

Here, neither the Act nor its legislative history indicates, either expressly or by necessary implication, that the enactment of the MIGA Act abrogates any common law rule with respect to the insured’s liability. Therefore, we conclude that MIGA’s duty to pay covered claims does not affect the insured’s liability for claims that exceed the $300,000 maximum payment available from MIGA. Our conclusion about legislative intent is reinforced by the legislature’s recent amendment of Minn.Stat. § 60C.09, subd. 2, adding a provision stating that a covered claim does not include “any claims under a policy written by an insolvent insurer with a deductible or self-insured retention of $300,000 or more.” Act of May 22, 2003, ch. 74, § 6, 2003 Minn. Laws 393, 399. We do not believe that the legislature intended for an insured with a deductible or self-insured retention of $300,000 or more to be completely responsible for a claim, regardless of the amount, while an insured with a deductible or self-insured retention of less than $300,000 essentially has no liability, at least as long as the claim is within the coverage limits of the policy. We recognize that the protection from MIGA may fall short of what the original policy would have provided. However, there is nothing in the Act that prevents an insured from making a claim against the assets, if any, of the insolvent insurer.

Although we realize that the Minnesota Court of Appeals has reached a different conclusion on the issue of the insured’s liability for a claim that exceeds MIGA’s payment obligation, we are not bound by the court of appeals’ interpretation of the MIGA Act in previous cases. Further, our decisions to deny further review in the Minnesota Mining and the Van Guilder cases do not constitute an endorsement of the reasoning of the court of appeals or the result reached in those cases. See State v. Shamp, 427 N.W.2d 228, 230 n. 3 (Minn.1988). Our decision to deny or accept a petition for further review is not guided by whether we agree or disagree with the court of appeals’ decision, but rather by the criteria for review set forth in Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 117, subd. 2. Consequently, we have warned against the temptation to read significance into a denial of further review. Murphy v. Milbank Mut. Ins. Co., 388 N.W.2d 732, 739 (Minn.1986). Moreover, notwithstanding the court of appeals’ statements in Minnesota Mining and Van Guilder, it is not clear that the issue of the insured’s obligation under the MIGA Act for an amount in excess of MIGA’s $300,000 payment obligation was raised on appeal in those cases, and the issue was not raised in the petitions for further review in those cases.

Although Goodyear’s claims amount to nearly $2 million, the coverage provided by MIGA as the deemed insurer is not the $7 million amount that would have been available from Reliance, but rather the $300,000 amount provided by the MIGA Act. MIGA’s limited payment obligation does not affect the insured’s potential liability on the claims. To the extent that Dynamic Air’s liability on Goodyear’s claims exceeds MIGA’s offer of judgment in the amount of $300,000, Goodyear retains the right to pursue its claims against Dynamic Air. Therefore, we answer the certified question as reformulated in the affirmative, holding that a party insured by an insolvent insurer may be liable for any portion of a claim that constitutes the difference between the $300,000 statutory maximum available from MIGA and the liability limit of the insolvent insurer’s policy.

As reformulated, certified question answered in the affirmative.

      . The federal court initially determined that it could not resolve the questions presented by Dynamic Air's motion to dismiss, but Goodyear and Dynamic Air then stipulated that Dynamic Air's net worth as of December 31, 2000, inclusive of its affiliates and subsidiaries, was less than $25 million on a consolidated basis, as required for a claim to be covered under the MIGA Act. See Minn.Stat. § 60C.09, subd. 2(3) (2004). The parties also stipulated that any payment of the $300,000 pursuant to the offer of judgment would not preclude Goodyear from pursuing additional recovery on its claims from Reliance’s liquidator.

      . In answering the reformulated question, we do not address any issue related to the amount of a claim in excess of the liability limit of the policy issued by the insolvent insurer.

      . We note that other jurisdictions confronting this issue have reached the same conclusion on different bases. See Johnson v. Braddy, 376 N.J.Super. 215, 869 A.2d 964, 967 (2005) (reasoning that "if the Legislature had intended to immunize tortfeasors from liability for damages in excess of the Guaranty Association's $300,000 maximum liability, it would have included a provision in the Guaranty Act expressly stating that intent”), appeal granted (N.J. June 9, 2005). Vickers v. Howe, 123 Ohio App.3d 456, 704 N.E.2d 344, 349 (1998) (holding that, because a victim retains the rights to sue the tortfeasor for any amount exceeding the payment by an insurer under common law, the defendant is liable for any judgment above the $300,000 statutory cap); Osborne v. Neville, 65 Pa. D & C.4th 225, 242 (Pa.Ct.Comm.Pl.2004) (stating that nothing contained in the state’s insurance guaranty acts "bestows immunity upon a health care provider for any portion of a malpractice judgment that is not paid” by the state’s guaranty association).