childabuselaw

Truth-Lie Testimony Not Admissible

The Washington Court of Appeals has reversed a child rape conviction because a detective and a doctor were permitted to comment on the credibility of the complaining 8-year-old girl. State of Washington v. Charles L. Kirkman, 126 Wn. App. 97 (2005), was thus remanded for a new trial.

Police Detective Kerr testified to his interview of the girl. He never said that he believed her. Rather, according to the court:

Detective Kerr testified in detail about a competency examination he gave [the girl] that related to her ability to tell the truth and he extracted her promise to tell the truth. …The State also asked if [she] understood the importance of telling the truth, and … was able to distinguish between the truth and a lie and provide examples. Detective Kerr responded that she was, and then said that she promised to tell him the truth.

As the court saw it, the detective thus

told the jury that [the girl] told the truth when she related the incriminating events to him. This is significant because a police officer's testimony may particularly affect a jury because of its special aura of reliability [and] because a witness may not give an opinion on another witness's credibility.

Physician John Stirling examined the child. He testified that she gave "a very clear history with ... lots of detail[,] ... a clear and consistent history of sexual touching ... with appropriate affect" and that "[t]he physical examination doesn't really lead us one way or the other, but I thought her history was clear and consistent." The court said this clearly commented on the girl's credibility, too.

Under the totality of the circumstances here, the court concluded, the opinion testimony from Dr. Stirling and Detective Kerr was improper.