State v. Carter, 498 P.3d 822

Defendant charged with indecent exposure under Portland Municipal Code PCC 14A.40.030 after an Uber Eats driver reported he exposed himself at his food cart.
Officer Taylor interviewed defendant; he denied the allegation in a flat, matter-of-fact manner and suggested witnesses can misperceive events.
During the interview, Taylor stated, “I would lose my mind if someone accused me of exposing myself,” expressing how she would react if falsely accused.
Defendant moved pretrial to exclude Taylor’s statement as irrelevant and prejudicial; the trial court admitted it and defendant was convicted.
On appeal, defendant argued the admission was error; the state defended admission as relevant context and alternatively argued harmlessness and preservation failure.
The Court of Appeals held the statement was not relevant to any proffered purpose, admission was error, and the error was not harmless; judgment reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of objection to Taylor’s statements	Carter failed to preserve because motion targeted opinion, not the exact phrasing	Pretrial motion in limine sufficiently preserved exclusion objection	Preserved: motion adequately raised the issue for appeal (Pitt)
Admissibility/relevance of officer’s statement	Taylor’s comment was relevant contextual lay testimony from an investigating officer	Officer’s statement amounted to a credibility opinion implying defendant was guilty because he did not react like an innocent person	Excluded as irrelevant: lay opinion about how she would react was not relevant to prove defendant’s credibility or guilt
Whether officer’s remark was permissible lay opinion under OEC 701	State: testimony was lay-based, from experience, and aided understanding of the interview	Carter: testimony improperly vouches for credibility and is not admissible to prove truth of defendant’s denial	Court: officer not an expert; lay opinion on another’s credibility is impermissible vouching (Chandler)
Harmlessness of erroneous admission	State: any error was harmless given other evidence/context	Defendant: testimony likely affected verdict because case hinged on credibility of driver vs defendant	Error not harmless: no physical evidence, credibility central, state emphasized the testimony; reversal required

State v. Pitt, 352 Or. 566 (preservation of in limine objection)
State v. Titus, 328 Or. 475 (standard of review for relevance rulings)
State v. Chandler, 360 Or. 323 (prohibition on vouching/credibility opinions)
Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or. 634 (burden for affirmance on an alternative basis)
State v. Goff, 258 Or. App. 757 (reviewing erroneous admission for harmlessness)
State v. Simon, 294 Or. App. 840 (consideration of cumulative evidence and emphasis in harmlessness inquiry)