340 P.3d 777
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Two great-grandchildren, K and A, separately reported sexual abuse by defendant.
- Consolidated jury trial: defendant found guilty on all counts relating to A and not guilty on the single count related to K.
- Appeal challenges Mills’s testimony at Liberty House as impermissible vouching for A’s credibility.
- Prosecution elicited Mills’s statements on false accusations and general credibility of child disclosures; defense objected and later narrowed.
- Trial court did not strike Mills’s testimony sua sponte; defendant argues plain error under ORAP 5.45.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mills’s testimony impermissibly vouched for A's credibility | Mills' statistics imply truth of A's disclosure | Testimony is improper vouching and must be struck | Not plain error; testimony not clearly vouching |
| Whether the trial court should have struck the disputed testimony sua sponte | Court erred by not sua sponte striking vouching evidence | No duty to strike absent objection in this context | No plain error; discretion to strike not clearly required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Corkill, 262 Or App 543 (2014) (trial court not required to sua sponte exclude questionable witness credibility questions)
- State v. Remme, 173 Or App 546 (2001) (general credibility evidence and non-connecting conclusions)
- State v. Lupoli, 348 Or 346 (2010) (limits on impermissible vouching and credibility testimony)
- State v. Preuitt, 255 Or App 215 (2013) (non-direct or indirect credibility indicators may be permissible)
- State v. Wilson, 266 Or App 481 (2014) (whether testimony constitutes permissible general information about credibility)