Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Inman

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 30, 2015No. 12CR0651; A153569Published

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

  1. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State v. BrownOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  3. State v. MiddletonOregon Supreme Court · 1983
  4. State v. FultsOregon Supreme Court · 2007
  5. State v. MilbradtOregon Supreme Court · 1988

41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API