288 So.3d 808
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Appellate dissent by Judge Ledet in State v. Daniel Nguyen, challenging the admission of testimony about the victim’s credibility and urging reversal and a new trial.
- At trial the school principal was asked if she had experience discerning when children tell the truth and then whether she had any impression the victim was untruthful; the principal replied she had no reason to doubt the victim and implicitly vouched for the truth of the victim’s out-of-court statement.
- Defense counsel objected; the trial court overruled the objection, treating the questions as ordinary fact-witness testimony within the principal’s duties.
- The victim’s out-of-court statements (which were inconsistent with her trial testimony, i.e., she recanted at trial) were the primary evidence supporting guilt; the credibility of those statements was central to the case.
- The State’s child-sexual-abuse expert also gave testimony the dissent views as expressing an opinion about the victim’s credibility (including a diagnosis “child sexual abuse chronic”), which the dissent says reinforced the principal’s improper credibility testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of lay witness opinion on another witness’s credibility | Principal’s testimony was routine, within her experience and duties; admissible as lay testimony | Such testimony impermissibly opines on witness credibility and invades the factfinder’s province | Dissent: admission was error — witness improperly vouched for victim’s credibility |
| Whether objection was preserved for appeal | Trial court treated questions as non-expert and overruled objection; State implicitly argues error not preserved | Defense contemporaneously objected and argued principal could not be asked if she believed the victim | Dissent: objection preserved for appellate review and should be considered |
| Applicable rule and prohibition on credibility opinions | State relies on trial court’s characterization of testimony as lay/fact testimony | Defense relies on La. C.E. art. 608 and precedent prohibiting opinion testimony on another witness’s credibility | Dissent: La. C.E. art. 608 and cases (Foret, Smith, Lawrence) bar opinion testimony on credibility from expert and lay witnesses |
| Harmless-error analysis given the centrality of victim credibility | State would argue any error was harmless given other evidence/corroboration | Nguyen argues error likely affected verdict because case hinged on recanted out-of-court statements; compounded by expert testimony expressing belief/diagnosis | Dissent: cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt verdict was unattributable to the error; would reverse and remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. R.W.B., 105 So.3d 54 (La. 2012) (captioning/naming convention cited as binding)
- State v. Smith, 600 So.2d 1319 (La. 1992) (credibility determinations are exclusively for the factfinder)
- State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La. 1993) (expert opinion on witness credibility is inadmissible)
- State v. Lawrence, 752 So.2d 934 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1999) (lay witness testimony opining on credibility is improper; error reviewed for harmlessness)
- State v. Wille, 559 So.2d 1321 (La. 1990) (factors for harmless-error review)
- State v. Alfaro, 128 So.3d 515 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (out-of-court statements that are recanted at trial may still support convictions)
- State v. Bernard, 358 So.2d 1268 (La. 1978) (preservation requirement for appellate review)