(3) that the trial court prejudicially erred (a) in letting the jury replay a videotape of an interview with the complainant which had been admitted in evidence and (b) in telling the jury, in response to a question about whether trial transcripts were available for review, that there were no transcripts available and that the jurors should rely on their memories.State v. Kraushaar, 459 N.W.2d 346 (Minn.App. 1990). Although the court of appeals stated that it was granting defendant a new trial, the necessary effect of its determination that the evidence was insufficient is to bar a retrial unless, of course, we reverse the court of appeals' determination that the evidence was insufficient.

Minn.Stat. § 609.341, subd. 5 (1990). In State v. Kraushaar, 459 N.W.2d 346, 353 (Minn.App. 1990), this court held that the child's testimony that her father touched her on her butt, "where he's not supposed to touch me," was "not detailed or specific enough to clearly implicate sexual activity." The supreme court reversed, finding the evidence of second degree criminal sexual conduct sufficient.

In this sense, the dolls and story cards are unlike the scientific method called interpretive drawing analysis, which this court subjected to the the Frye test. State v. Kraushaar, 459 N.W.2d 346, 349 (Minn.App. 1990), pet. for rev. granted (Minn. Oct. 18, 1990).