State v. Pergande, 348 P.3d 245

Defendant convicted of multiple counts of sexual offenses against two daughters (S and J); convictions on Counts 1–6 were appealed; Counts 7–10 were dismissed at trial.
Alleged abuse occurred months before disclosure; no physical evidence existed; case relied heavily on testimonial evidence.
A clinical social worker, Terry, treated both girls for ~18 months and testified about their statements, diagnoses (PTSD), and general indicators of coaching/suggestibility.
On cross/examination Terry was asked whether she saw any indications of suggestion or coaching in S and J; she replied, “Absolutely not.” Defense did not object at trial to that specific answer.
Defendant had earlier moved in limine to exclude vouching testimony; the trial court ruled generally that witnesses may not opine whether another is telling the truth and invited objections during testimony.
On appeal defendant argued the testimony was impermissible vouching (Lupoli/Keller line) and sought relief preserved by the in limine ruling or, alternatively, plain-error review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the in limine motion preserved objection to Terry’s specific testimony that there was no indication of coaching	Motion in limine was general; state argues it did not preserve and defendant should have objected at trial	Defendant contends general pretrial ruling plus earlier objections preserved the claim	Court: Motion was too amorphous to preserve the specific objection; defendant needed to object at trial
Whether Terry’s statement that the children showed no signs of coaching was plain error and whether appellate court should correct it	State contends the answer was permissible descriptive shorthand (age-appropriate language) or that failure to object was tactical, so error is not plain or should not be corrected	Defendant argues the testimony was direct vouching on complainants’ credibility and, given the lack of physical evidence, was likely harmful; asks for reversal	Court: The statement was impermissible direct vouching, constitutes plain error, and, under Ailes factors, the gravity of the error in a credibility-driven sexual-abuse case warrants reversal and remand for a new trial

State v. Lupoli, 234 P.3d 117 (Or. 2010) (statements that fall short of overt vouching can still be impermissible credibility comments)
State v. Middleton, 657 P.2d 1215 (Or. 1983) (a witness may not opine whether another witness is telling the truth)
State v. Keller, 844 P.2d 195 (Or. 1992) (expert’s testimony that there was no evidence of coaching is impermissible vouching)
State v. Wilson, 337 P.3d 990 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (plain-error framework applied to credibility-comment testimony)
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 823 P.2d 956 (Or. 1991) (factors for exercising discretion to correct plain error)