State v. Corkill
262 Or. App. 543
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant was convicted of DUII (ORS 813.010) and refusing a breath test (ORS 813.095) after being stopped for driving the wrong way late at night.
- Officers Burnham and Clarke testified to signs of intoxication, DUI-related statements, poor balance, and a refusal to take a breath test.
- Defendant testified and denied most officer observations, said he had only half a beer, and acknowledged driving the wrong way but blamed confusion about the divider.
- On cross-examination the prosecutor repeatedly asked defendant whether the officers were lying; defendant agreed some of their testimony was lies.
- Defense did not object at trial; on redirect defendant stuck to his view that some officer statements were lies rather than mistakes.
- On appeal defendant argued the prosecutor’s questions improperly elicited defendant’s opinion on other witnesses’ truthfulness and that the trial court plainly erred by not intervening sua sponte.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court plainly erred by failing to sua sponte stop cross-examination that asked defendant if officers were lying | State: No sua sponte duty; prosecutor contrasted testimonies to impeach defendant, not to elicit vouching | Defendant: Questions violated Isom; trial court should have intervened despite no objection | Court: No plain error — questions sought to impeach defendant on stand, not to elicit vouching evidence that required sua sponte exclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Isom, 306 Or 587 (Supreme Court) (witness may not be asked to opine on another witness's truthfulness)
- State v. Reyes-Camarena, 330 Or 431 (plain-error standards for unpreserved claims)
- State v. Ramirez-Estrada, 260 Or App 312 (trial court inaction as basis for claimed sua sponte error)
- State v. Higgins, 258 Or App 177 (trial court plain error for failing to exclude witness testimony vouching for victim credibility)
- B. A. v. Webb, 253 Or App 1 (trial court plain error for admitting expert credibility opinions supporting plaintiff)
- State v. Lowell, 249 Or App 364 (detective's testimony improperly invaded jury's credibility role)
- State v. Charboneau, 323 Or 38 (jury is sole judge of witness credibility)
- State v. Southard, 347 Or 127 (risk that jurors defer to expert credibility assessments)
- State v. Sanchez-Jacobo, 250 Or App 621 (witness may assert own truthfulness without impermissible vouching)