testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. Expert testimony is generally admissible if: “(1) it assists the trier of fact, (2) it has a reasonable basis, (3) it is relevant, and (4) its probative value outweighs its potential for prejudice.” State v. Jensen, 482 N.W.2d 238, 239 (Minn.App.1992), review denied (Minn. May 15, 1992). Although the supreme court has refused “to establish a categorical rule that expert testimony concerning all characteristics typically displayed by adolescent sexual abuse victims is admissible,” the supreme court has upheld the admission of expert testimony regarding the behavior characteristics often displayed by child sexual assault victims. State v. Hall, 406 N.W.2d 503, 505 (Minn.1987); see also State v. Myers, 359 N.W.2d 604, 609 (Minn.1984) (<HOLDING>); State v. Garden, 404 N.W.2d 912, 916
holding admission of expert testimony not erroneous where expert described typical traits and characteristics of sexually abused children holding that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing expert testimony that directly linked the characteristics of sexually abused children to the complainants in this case holding that proper foundation existed for qualified experts testimony regarding child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome where expert had extensive training and experience with sexually abused children expert testified regarding the characteristics of the syndrome and its recognition by specific agencies and defense counsel rigorously crossexamined witness concerning the basis of her knowledge of the victims conduct holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive holding that the testimony of an expert witness is admissible when the witness outlines the general characteristics of sexually abused children and then states that the victims symptoms are consistent with those characteristics