State of Minnesota v. Scott Joseph Arnes, A15-2093

Late-night altercation outside a restaurant between Scott Arnes and B.L.S.; shortly after, B.L.S. saw Arnes near B.L.S.’s Mercedes.
Police arrived after 9-1-1 calls; officers observed fresh scratches on the car and a red substance on the hood; DNA matched the substance to Arnes.
Officers interviewed both men; Officer Peterson testified that Arnes denied involvement and that Peterson told Arnes, “I didn’t believe him.”
Arnes was charged with and convicted by a jury of first-degree criminal damage to property (> $1,000).
Arnes did not object at trial to Officer Peterson’s statement but raised on appeal that the officer’s remark was impermissible vouching that required reversal.
The court reviewed under the plain-error standard and considered whether the district court’s failure to sua sponte strike or give a curative instruction was reversible error.

Issue	Arnes’ Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether officer’s statement “I didn’t believe him” was impermissible vouching that warranted reversal	The officer vouched for complainant’s credibility; admission was prejudicial and required reversal	Statement was context for defendant’s interview and not plain vouching; any error was not plain or prejudicial	Court affirmed: no plain error in failing to sua sponte strike or instruct; statement was brief/contextual and did not affect substantial rights
Whether district court’s failure to sua sponte strike or give limiting instruction constitutes plain error	Failure to act sua sponte was reversible because jury could rely on impermissible vouching	Courts generally should not intrude on trial strategy; sua sponte remedies are not required and usually not reversible error	Court held failure to act sua sponte was not plain error given briefness, lack of emphasis, and strategic waiver
Whether any error affected Arnes’s substantial rights (prejudice)	Officer’s remark could have been the concrete fact prompting conviction given other evidentiary gaps	Jury already knew officers disbelieved Arnes (they arrested him); testimony added nothing new and court instructed jurors they are sole judges of credibility	Court held no reasonable likelihood the remark affected the verdict; prejudice prong fails

State v. Vick, 632 N.W.2d 676 (Minn. 2001) (district court not required to sua sponte strike testimony or give limiting instruction)
State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1998) (plain-error review framework for unobjected-to trial errors)
State v. Manthey, 711 N.W.2d 498 (Minn. 2006) (plain-error standard and limits on sua sponte interventions)
State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2006) (definition of plain error)
State v. Vance, 714 N.W.2d 428 (Minn. 2006) (police statements during interviews admissible for context)
State v. Lindsey, 632 N.W.2d 652 (Minn. 2001) (police interview/context evidence principles)
State v. Tovar, 605 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. 2000) (admission of investigatory statements bearing on credibility)
State v. Ferguson, 581 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 1998) (one witness cannot vouch for another’s credibility)
State v. Washington, 693 N.W.2d 195 (Minn. 2005) (courts should not necessarily disrupt trial strategy by sua sponte intervention)
State v. Robertson, 884 N.W.2d 864 (Minn. 2016) (prejudice element: reasonable likelihood error substantially affected the verdict)
State v. Burrell, 772 N.W.2d 459 (Minn. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Taylor, 869 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2015) (district court did not plainly err in declining sua sponte limiting instruction)