State v. Preuitt, 296 P.3d 648

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of multiple sexual abuse, sodomy, and attempted sodomy counts in Oregon.
On appeal, defendant challenged therapist Richards’s testimony about K’s credibility and suggestibility.
K had reported abuse by defendant; physical exam showed no physical evidence of abuse.
Richards treated K for PTSD and testified about diagnostic criteria and her conclusions relevant to K’s disclosures.
The court found that some of Richards’s statements were impermissible comments on K’s credibility and reversed those convictions, remanding for a new trial on those counts.
Convictions on counts where K was named as victim (Counts 13–18, 20–21) were reversed and remanded; other counts were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Richards’s credibility-related testimony was admissible	State argues testimony aided diagnosis and was admissible.	Ortega argues it was impermissible vouching of K’s credibility.	Yes; statements were impermissible vouching and require reversal.

Lupoli v. State, 348 Or 346 (2010) (witness credibility vouching by experts; impermissible when tied to child credibility)
Keller v. State, 315 Or 273 (1993) (doctor’s statement about child credibility is impermissible testimony)
Milbradt v. State, 305 Or 621 (1988) (credibility assessment is for jury; witnesses cannot vouch)
Middleton v. State, 294 Or 427 (1983) (witness may not testify to credibility of another witness)
Camarena v. State, 344 Or 28 (2008) (harmless-error analysis for improperly admitted evidence; cumulative or elicited by defendant affects outcome)