Manning v. Kelly

The prohibition on vouching ensures “that the jury’s role in assessing witness credibility is not usurped by another witness’s opinion testimony.” State v. Chandler, 380 P.3d 932, 936 (2016).

Petitioner appealed the denial of post-conviction relief after convictions of multiple counts of compelling and promoting prostitution. On appeal, Petitioner argued five assignments of error. In the first three, Petitioner argued the denial of post-conviction relief violated his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict on three counts. The Court followed the Oregon Supreme Court’s holding in Watkins v. Ackley, 523 P.3d 86, 96 (2022), that “a conviction obtained in violation of the jury unanimity rule constitutes a ‘substantial denial’ of a constitutional right and ‘renders the conviction void’” and reversed the denial of relief for the non unanimous verdicts for Counts 1, 3, and 5. The Court rejected Petitioner’s fifth assignment of error and focused on the fourth. Petitioner argued counsel showed incompetence by failing to object to a detective’s improper “vouching” testimony. The prohibition on vouching ensures “that the jury’s role in assessing witness credibility is not usurped by another witness’s opinion testimony.” State v. Chandler, 380 P.3d 932, 936 (2016). The Court reasoned the detective’s testimony may have assisted the jury in understanding the dynamics of sex-trafficking investigations but did not give an opinion on whether the victim was credible. The Court concluded the post-conviction denial of relief on this claim was proper. Reversed and remanded as to Petitioner’s sixth post-conviction claim; otherwise affirmed.