State v. McCurry, 455 P.3d 1014

Defendant indicted for first-degree burglary, first- and second-degree robbery, unlawful use of a weapon, and first-degree theft following a home burglary.
Two codefendants pleaded guilty and testified that defendant planned the burglary and played a role in gaining entry; defendant testified he was a victim and denied involvement.
During closing, the prosecutor repeatedly characterized state witnesses as credible and described defendant’s testimony as lies (e.g., "extremely credible," "couldn’t tell a lie if he had a gun to his head").
Defense made no contemporaneous objections; the court instructed the jury that lawyers’ arguments are not evidence.
Jury convicted defendant; on appeal he argued the trial court committed plain error by failing to declare a mistrial sua sponte for prosecutorial vouching and emotional appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by failing to declare a mistrial sua sponte based on prosecutorial vouching and emotional appeals in closing argument	Prosecutor’s remarks were not so prejudicial as to deny a fair trial; jury instruction sufficed; no plain error	Prosecutor vouched for witnesses and appealed to emotion; comments were so prejudicial the court had a duty to declare mistrial sua sponte	Affirmed: even if remarks were improper vouching, they were not so prejudicial as to require a sua sponte mistrial or plain-error reversal

State v. Parker, 384 P.2d 986 (Or. 1963) (addressed prosecutorial vouching; conviction affirmed absent objection)
State v. Montez, 927 P.2d 64 (Or. 1996) (sua sponte mistrial required only if comments so prejudicial as to deny fair trial)
State v. Turnidge, 373 P.3d 138 (Or. 2016) (plain-error review standards)
State v. Cheney, 16 P.3d 1164 (Or. App. 2000) (improper argument can be beyond bounds but not necessarily reversible without objection)