State v. Inman
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentSercombe, J.
INTRODUCTION
Vouching evidence, by its nature, is quite prejudicial to a defendant, and its admission usurps the province of the jury and undermines the fairness of a trial. Because of that, in criminal cases where a trial court has plainly erred by failing to strike true vouching testimony by a lay or expert witness, and where the credibility of the verified witness is a significant issue in the case, we have exercised our discretion to correct the error. Here, despite the explicit testimony by a police officer about the truthfulness of the victim, whose credibility was identified by both…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. BrownOregon Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. MiddletonOregon Supreme Court · 1983
- State v. FultsOregon Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. MilbradtOregon Supreme Court · 1988
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.