and not inconsistent with existing Minnesota law. Because we have afforded substantial discretion to trial courts in permitting expert testimony of police officers testifying about matters within the ambit of their law enforcement expertise, we hold that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in permitting a police officer to offer an expert opinion as to whether a particular group constitutes a criminal gang. As always, the admissibility of such testimony is subject to a trial court’s preliminary, discretionary determination that the expert officer’s testimony will be helpful to the jury and that the officer possesses an adequate foundation of knowledge in the subject area to justify the opinion. Minn. R.Evid. 702; see also State v. Bauer, 598 N.W.2d 352, 369 (Minn.1999) (<HOLDING>). Carillo maintains that the question of
recognizing that prosecutors are vested with wide discretion in determining how and when to file criminal charges holding that trial justice has wide discretion to determine relevancy of evidence recognizing that the trial judge must be given a wide range of discretion in determining whether a mistrial should be declared holding that trial court has wide discretion in determining sufficiency of foundation for opinion testimony holding family court has wide discretion in determining how marital property is to be distributed