State v. Miller

“Vouching refers to the expression of one’s personal opinion about the credibility of a witness.” State v. Chandler, 360 Or 323, 330-31 (2016) (internal quotations omitted). “Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the jury, so witnesses are categorically prohibited from expressing a view on whether another witness is telling the truth.” State v. Middleton, 294 Or 427, 438 (1983) (internal quotations omitted).

Defendant was convicted sex crimes against two children (C and K) of his former roommate stemming from incidents that occurred in 2012. On appeal, Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s overruling of his objection during the State’s redirect of C’s adoptive mother, Laurie, arguing that her testimony amounted to vouching for C’s credibility. Defendant also assigned error the trail court’s decisions not to strike statements the State made during closing arguments that he argued “impermissibly vouched for the complainants at several points and thrice referred to facts not in evidence,” and to not declare a mistrial due to those statements. “Vouching refers to the expression of one’s personal opinion about the credibility of a witness.” State v. Chandler, 360 Or 323, 330-31 (2016) (internal quotations omitted). “Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the jury, so witnesses are categorically prohibited from expressing a view on whether another witness is telling the truth.” State v. Middleton, 294 Or 427, 438 (1983) (internal quotations omitted). As to Defendant’s first assignment of error, the Court reasoned that although by the time Defendant objected to the State’s line of questioning Laurie’s testimony was “inextricably bound up with her impermissible vouching testimony,” the effect of her testimony was to “effectively communicate to the factfinder that Laurie did not perceive C to be lying" during C's disclosure to Laurie of the 2012 incident in 2019. In this context, the Court held that any error in overruling Defendant’s objection was harmless. As to the Defendant’s assignments of error regarding the State’s closing argument, the Court reasoned that the alleged vouching statements were arguments about the persuasiveness of the evidence and thus permitted, and the three references to facts not in evidence were improper but were not so prejudicial to require the trial court to strike them or declare a mistrial. However, the Court reversed the trial court’s order of restitution due to lack of evidence. Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $1,480 in restitution reversed; otherwise affirmed.