Easter v. Mills, 239 Or. App. 209

Easter was convicted in Oregon of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse (A.H. and T.R.), and sought post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to preserve a contemporaneous objection to A.H.’s mother’s testimony.
A.H., age 11 at trial, testified that Easter abused her on two occasions years earlier; she admitted fights with petitioner's daughter but denied fabrication due to anger at Easter or his daughter.
A.H.’s mother testified at trial after being asked if she knew any motive for A.H. to lie; defense objected as speculation; the court overruled the objection and the mother answered that she did not know of any motive to fabricate.
Petitioner challenged on post-conviction review that the testimony impermissibly commented on A.H.’s credibility; the post-conviction court rejected this claim.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the challenged testimony was permissible and that, even if not, petitioner failed to show prejudice because a prior witness (A.H.’s father) had already stated that his daughter does not lie.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was A.H.’s mother’s testimony impermissibly vouching or commenting on credibility?	Easter argues the mother’s motive-question and answer impermissibly commented on credibility.	Mothers’s motive inquiry did not amount to vouching and was permissible given defense theory that A.H. lied for motive.	Permissible; not improper vouching under Lupoli and related line of cases.
Did counsel’s failure to preserve the objection constitute ineffective assistance?	Easter contends failure to preserve objection was deficient performance.	Preservation not required as the conduct was permissible; no error or prejudice established.	Not established; the testimony itself was permissible.
If error occurred, was there prejudice requiring relief?	Error affected outcome of trial by admitting potentially improper testimony.	Even if error, overwhelming non-prejudicial context and other testimony negate prejudice.	No prejudice shown; likelihood of impact on outcome is low.

State v. Lupoli, 348 Or. 346 (2010) (discussion of credibility-based vouching; exclusion of expert credibility opinions)
State v. Middleton, 294 Or. 427 (1983) (no witness may opine on another's truthfulness; vouching prohibited)
State v. Southard, 347 Or. 127 (2009) (credibility-related testimony analyzed under vouching framework)
State v. Keller, 315 Or. 273 (1993) (reliance on credibility-based testimony and vouching analysis)
State v. Milbradt, 305 Or. 621 (1988) (fundamental limits on witness credibility testimony)