State v. Murphy

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 04-27-2022
  • Case #: A173010
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Aoyagi, J. for the Court, Tookey, P.J., specially concurring, & Sercombe, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

If a witness unambiguously vouched, it is plain error not to have stricken the testimony, even absent an objection; however, it is a matter of discretion whether to correct this error. See State v. Corkill, 262 Or App 543, 552-53 (2014); State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629 (2013).

Defendant was convicted of first-degree invasion of personal privacy after recording his 15-year-old stepdaughter, D, undressing. During the bench trial, where the only significant dispute was over D’s credibility, a caseworker testified that her investigation resulted in a determination of “founded for sexual abuse.” Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s failure to strike this testimony, arguing that the error is plain and warrants reversal. If a witness unambiguously vouched, it is plain error not to have stricken the testimony, even absent an objection; however, it is a matter of discretion whether to correct this error. See State v. Corkill, 262 Or App 543, 552-53 (2014); State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629 (2013). The Court determined that the caseworker’s testimony constituted impermissible vouching because it was a conclusion based solely on her own assessment of D’s credibility. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume the factfinder in a bench trial would be familiar with the legal meaning of “founded” in this context. However, because the factfinder made a credibility assessment independent of the caseworker’s testimony, there is little likelihood that the error affected the outcome of this case. The Court therefore declined to correct it. Affirmed.

Advanced Search


Back to Top