Waldorf v. Premo, 457 P.3d 298

Petitioner (Waldorf) was convicted by a jury of first‑degree sexual abuse based on allegations that he touched a 10‑year‑old girl while driving her home.
A detective (Martin) who interviewed petitioner testified at trial about statements and behaviors petitioner displayed during the interview.
Trial counsel did not object when Martin (1) testified he “found it curious” petitioner could recall many details of the day but not whether he touched the child, and (2) gave answers on cross‑examination suggesting petitioner’s demeanor was consistent with guilt.
Petitioner sought post‑conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object/move to strike Martin’s allegedly vouching testimony) under Article I, § 11 of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The post‑conviction court denied relief; the Court of Appeals reviewed whether Martin’s testimony was impermissible vouching and whether counsel’s failure to object was constitutionally deficient.
The court affirmed, holding that (a) the “found it curious” remark was offered for context and not plainly vouching, and (b) the cross‑examination answers were responsive to defense questions and petitioner failed to show every reasonable attorney would have objected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether detective Martin’s statements to the jury amounted to impermissible vouching on petitioner’s credibility	Martin’s comments (e.g., “I found it curious”) and cross‑exam answers effectively told the jury petitioner was lying and should be disbelieved	Martin’s statements provided context for petitioner’s interview responses and were responsive to defense questions, not direct credibility opinions	Court: “found it curious” was contextual and not objectionable; cross‑exam answers were responsive and not clearly objectionable as vouching
Whether trial counsel’s failure to object to Martin’s statements constituted ineffective assistance	Counsel’s failure to object or move to strike was constitutionally deficient and prejudiced petitioner	Counsel reasonably refrained: the statements were either admissible context or invited/responsive answers; not all reasonable counsel would have objected	Court: Counsel’s performance not shown deficient because petitioner failed to show every reasonable attorney would have objected; affirmed

State v. Chandler, 360 Or 323 (Or. 2016) (clarifies vouching rule applies to out‑of‑court credibility comments and distinguishes admissible contextual uses)
State v. Middleton, 294 Or 427 (Or. 1982) (witness may not testify an opinion that another witness is truthful or not)
Alne v. Nooth, 288 Or App 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2017) (standard of review and principles for post‑conviction ineffective‑assistance claims)
State v. Remme, 173 Or App 546 (Or. Ct. App. 2001) (testimony must assist, not supplant, jury credibility determinations)
State v. Wilson, 266 Or App 481 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (distinguishes testimony that merely informs credibility from testimony that "connects the dots" for the jury)
Maney v. Angelozzi, 285 Or App 596 (Or. Ct. App. 2017) (in ineffective‑assistance analysis, inquiry whether every attorney exercising reasonable skill would have acted differently)