Oregon v. Codon

Prohibition against vouching evidence does not apply to evidence given for contextual purposes.

On second appeal of this conviction, Defendant asserted two assignments of error: (1) the trial court erroneously admitted recorded evidence of an interrogation that violated the “vouching” rule; and (2) the trial court erroneously denied a motion to suppress statements made to a Department of Human Services (DHS) caseworker based on the caseworker’s failure to re-Mirandize Defendant before initiating questioning. “[A]n out-of-court statement about the credibility of a witness is subject to the prohibition against vouching evidence only if the statement is offered for the truth of the credibility opinion that it expresses.” State v. Chandler, 360 Or 323 (2016). The recorded evidence of the interrogation was for the purpose of providing relevant context, not for opinion, thus not subject to the vouching rule. The caseworker did not need to re-Mirandize Defendant before questioning because a reasonable person in his circumstances would not have reason to believe his rights had changed during the 16-hour gap between the time he was Mirandized post-arrest and the caseworker’s questioning. Affirmed.