State v. Corkill

A court does not have a duty to sua sponte exclude testimony where the questioning leading to this testimony did not present "vouching" concerns.

Defendant appealed a conviction of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) and unlawfully refusing to take a breath test. During the trial, Prosecutor asked Defendant whether he thought that the officers were lying regarding the circumstances of the arrest. No objections were made to Prosecutor’s questioning and Defendant stated that he believed the officers were lying. Defendant claimed on appeal that the trial court erred by failing to exclude this testimony and that the trial court had a duty to sua sponte exclude the Prosecutor from asking whether the Defendant believed the officers were lying. The Court reasoned that the trial court only had a duty to sua sponte exclude testimony where the questioning presented “vouching” concerns (i.e. a witness testifying to the credibility of another witness). There were no “vouching” concerns in the Prosecutor’s questioning. The Court held that the trial court did not err in failing to exclude testimony. Affirmed.