State of Minnesota v. Joshua Williams Wermers, A15-1512

Background

In 2013, R.M., then under ten, initially disclosed sexual abuse by his stepfather (Wermers), then recanted; mother reported allegations two weeks later and county social worker interviewed R.M.
The social-worker interview included a leading question that prompted R.M. to disclose multiple incidents; the interview was videotaped and later used at trial.
Wermers was charged with two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct and sought to admit testimony from two clinical-psychologist experts (Drs. Reitman and Keller) to critique the social-worker’s interview technique and assert the potential for false disclosures.
The district court held qualification hearings and excluded both experts as not qualified to assess forensic interviews of children under ten; the social worker testified and acknowledged her question was leading.
Wermers also challenged several prosecutor statements made in closing argument as improper (facts not in evidence, vouching, first-person testimony); the district court overruled objections and rejected claims of reversible misconduct.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding exclusion of experts was not an abuse of discretion (and harmless if error), and that the prosecutor’s comments—objected and unobjected—were either permissible, harmless, or not plain error.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Exclusion of defense expert testimony on forensic interview techniques	Excluding Drs. Reitman and Keller violated Wermers’ due-process right to present a meaningful defense	Experts lacked qualifications/experience specific to forensic interviews of children under ten; district court acted within discretion	Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; even if error, admission would be harmless beyond reasonable doubt
Reliability/helpfulness of proffered expert opinions	Experts would show social-worker’s leading questions could produce false disclosures	Trial counsel cross-examined the social worker and elicited admission the question was leading; experts’ testimony would be cumulative or unhelpful	Affirmed: exclusion not an abuse; harmless error because defense already elicited key admissions
Prosecutor’s allegedly factual statements about delayed reporting and physical evidence	Statements asserted facts not in evidence and improperly bolstered the state’s case	Statements were reasonable inferences from evidence and, where improper, were harmless or not emphasized	Affirmed: at most some statements improper but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Prosecutorial vouching/first-person testimony (preparing witness)	Prosecutor vouched for child’s credibility and improperly testified about witness preparation (“I didn’t want him to testify from a script”)	Context shows argument about credibility and witness demeanor; jury instructions cure statements about matters not in evidence	Affirmed: comments did not require reversal; objected statements harmless; unobjected statements not plain error

Key Cases Cited

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (due-process right to present a meaningful defense)
State v. Mosley, 853 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2014) (defendant’s right to offer witness testimony is subject to evidentiary rules)
State v. Obeta, 796 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. 2011) (Rule 702 expert-testimony admissibility standard)
State v. Reese, 692 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 2005) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
State v. Helterbridle, 301 N.W.2d 545 (Minn. 1980) (district court discretion on expert admission)
State v. Post, 512 N.W.2d 99 (Minn. 1994) (harmless-error test when defense excluded from presenting complete defense)
State v. McCray, 753 N.W.2d 746 (Minn. 2008) (definition and review of prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2006) (plain-error review for unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct)