State v. Murphy, 510 P.3d 269

Defendant (stepfather) was charged with first‑degree invasion of personal privacy for video‑recording his 15‑year‑old stepdaughter undressed in a downstairs bathroom.
Case was tried to the court (bench trial); central factual dispute: whether defendant knowingly recorded D (intent) or accidentally recorded his wife.
DHS protective‑services caseworker (Vaughn) testified she investigated and the investigation “resulted in a founded for sexual abuse” disposition against defendant.
Defendant made no contemporaneous objection at trial; on appeal he argued the DHS testimony was impermissible vouching and sought plain‑error review.
Court of Appeals held the DHS “founded” testimony was unambiguously vouching and the trial court plainly erred by not striking it, but declined to correct the error because the bench judge expressly relied on its own credibility findings and the error was unlikely to have affected the outcome.
Judgment of conviction (first‑degree invasion of personal privacy) affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to strike DHS caseworker testimony that her investigation was “founded for sexual abuse” as impermissible vouching	Vaughn’s statement was not vouching; no plain error; bench judge relied on its own credibility assessments; defendant may have had tactical reason not to object	The “founded” statement was an impermissible credibility endorsement of the victim; although unpreserved, it is plain error requiring reversal	The testimony constituted impermissible vouching and its admission was plain error, but the court declined to correct the error because it was unlikely to have affected the verdict given the bench judge’s independent credibility findings; conviction affirmed

State v. Chandler, 360 Or. 323 (discusses the judicial rule against witness vouching)
State v. Middleton, 294 Or. 427 (witnesses may not opine on another witness’s credibility)
State v. Black, 364 Or. 579 (vouching is categorically inadmissible; context matters)
State v. Sperou, 365 Or. 121 (certain terms or usages can amount to impermissible vouching depending on context)
State v. Lupoli, 348 Or. 346 (experts/health professionals impermissibly vouched when tying diagnosis to complainant truthfulness)
State v. Milbradt, 305 Or. 621 (psychotherapists may not render opinions on witness credibility)
Querbach v. Dept. of Human Services, 308 Or. App. 131 (explains DHS “founded”/“substantiated” means reasonable cause to believe; low evidentiary threshold)
Berger v. SOSCF, 195 Or. App. 587 (clarifies that a “founded” disposition equates to reasonable suspicion, not proof of occurrence)