State v. Black

“The rule against vouching prohibits a witness from making a direct comment, or one that is tantamount to a direct comment, on another witness’s credibility.” State v. Beauvais, 357 Or 524, 545, 354 P3d 680 (2015).

Defendant petitioned for review and assigned error to the Court of Appeals decision affirming his conviction for sexually abusing several minors. Defendant argued that expert testimony is admissible and is not considered vouching if, from the information conveyed, the factfinder can make an independent determination of truthfulness. In response, the State argued that to permit the expert to testify regarding the interview techniques used in a witness interview would allow him to impermissibly comment on the credibility of the witnesses and therefore would violate the vouching rule. “The rule against vouching prohibits a witness from making a direct comment, or one that is tantamount to a direct comment, on another witness’s credibility.” State v. Beauvais, 357 Or 524, 545, 354 P3d 680 (2015). The Court found that the proffered testimony did not violate the vouching rule because the testimony would have identified the ways in which the interviews of the witnesses fell short of established interviewing protocols. This testimony would not have provided jurors with his opinion on the truthfulness of the witnesses but would have been a helpful tool for the jury in assessing the credibility of the witnesses. Thus, the Court held that “the court must determine whether the testimony provides an opinion on truthfulness or, instead, provides a tool that the factfinder could use in assessing credibility.” Reversed and remanded.