State v. Moses, 2018 Ohio 356

Lionel Moses was convicted by a jury of three counts of second-degree drug trafficking based on three controlled buys from a confidential informant, Anthony West.
West, an indicted trafficker who cooperated with the Mahoning Valley Task Force in exchange for a reduced sentence, wore audio/video recording equipment during the buys; only the first buy produced working video.
Officer Patton testified for the State and, on direct examination, described West as "credible" and answered questions framed with the prosecutor referring to the police as "we/us."
The State introduced recordings, stills, and text messages; Moses did not testify or call witnesses.
During rebuttal, the prosecutor made remarks criticizing the defense and appealed to community safety; an objection to comments about criminal records was sustained.
Moses requested an accomplice/informant credibility jury instruction (denied). The trial court sentenced Moses to consecutive prison terms; Moses appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded, vacating the conviction based on improper vouching for the informant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State improperly vouched for its confidential informant by eliciting testimony that the informant was "credible" and by prosecutor aligning the office with police	Patton's testimony that West was "credible" was permissible background testimony; prosecutor did not personally vouch and merely elicited corroborative agency experience	Testimony and prosecutor wording ("we/us") amounted to impermissible vouching and bolstering of the informant, usurping jury's role to assess credibility	Reversed: admission of testimony that West was "credible," combined with prosecutorial alignment with police, constituted improper vouching and deprived defendant of a fair trial; new trial ordered

State v. Twyford, 94 Ohio St.3d 340 (2002) (prosecutorial-misconduct fairness-of-trial standard)
State v. Swiger, 5 Ohio St.2d 151 (1966) (jury is sole judge of witness credibility)
State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108 (1989) (opinion testimony about another witness's truthfulness generally inadmissible)
State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 1 (1997) (improper for attorney to express personal belief as to witness credibility or guilt)
State v. Keene, 81 Ohio St.3d 646 (1998) (vouching involves implying knowledge of facts outside the record or placing prosecutor's credibility at issue)
United States v. Francis, 170 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 1999) (prosecutor may ask about corroboration but must elicit how and where corroboration originated)
Cooper v. Sowders, 837 F.2d 284 (6th Cir. 1988) (police testimony about informant reliability in other cases can deny fair trial)
State v. Kennan, 81 Ohio St.3d 133 (1998) (remedy for certain prosecutorial misconduct is a new trial)
State v. Huff, 145 Ohio App.3d 555 (1st Dist. 2001) (police officer opinion about another's truthfulness is especially problematic because jurors may overvalue officer testimony)