2014 COA 65
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Patrick Sean Bridges was charged with multiple counts including sexual assault on a child, aggravated incest, and enticement after his daughter S.B. alleged sexual abuse.
- No physical or corroborating direct evidence; prosecution relied primarily on S.B.’s trial testimony and the recorded forensic interview.
- S.B. and her stepsister A.Q. each gave forensic interviews; A.Q.’s interview supported S.B.’s allegation but A.Q. recanted at trial.
- The forensic interviewer was qualified as an expert in forensic interviewing, including assessment for coaching and deception, and testified about indicators of coaching.
- In response to juror questions, the interviewer testified (over defense objection) that he concluded neither S.B. nor A.Q. had been coached.
- Jury convicted Bridges on three counts; he appealed, arguing the interviewer’s statements improperly vouched for witness credibility. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony stating interviewees were not coached | Testimony explained interviewer techniques and assessments; aided jury understanding | Testimony impermissibly vouched for witnesses’ credibility on a specific occasion | Reversed — testimony constituted improper opinion on witness truthfulness and was inadmissible |
| Harmless-error analysis for preserved, nonconstitutional evidentiary error | Error did not substantially influence verdict | Error substantially influenced verdict because credibility was central and evidence otherwise uncorroborated | Reversed — could not say error was harmless; new trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wittrein, 221 P.3d 1076 (Colo. 2009) (witnesses may not testify that another witness was telling the truth on a specific occasion)
- People v. Lopez, 129 P.3d 1061 (Colo. App. 2005) (opinion on a witness’s truthfulness intrudes on jury province)
- People v. Gaffney, 769 P.2d 1081 (Colo. 1989) (scope of permissible testimony on a witness’s character for truthfulness)
- People v. Eppens, 979 P.2d 14 (Colo. 1999) (expert’s statement that child victim was "sincere" in interview was error)
- People v. Snook, 745 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1987) (admission of expert testimony bolstering victim credibility not harmless when credibility is central)