State v. McKERLEY

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding a witness is not permitted to vouch for the credibility of another witness by offering testimony that bolsters the testimony of another witness
• explaining that the principles of law prohibiting improper bolstering \are incorporated into Rule 608(a)\
• finding the circuit court erred in admitting the forensic interviewer’s testimony, which included “comments on the credibility of the victim’s account of the alleged sexual assault”
• noting the circuit court erred in admitting the forensic interviewer’s testimony because it included “comments on the credibility of the victim’s account of the alleged sexual assault”
• finding although the expert never directly stated she believed the victim, the jury could not interpret the expert's testimony in any way other than that she believed the victim was telling the truth
• finding that even though the forensic interviewer \never testified directly that she believed what the victim stated in her interviews or in her testimony . . . . there [wa]s no way to interpret [the interviewer]'s testimony other than as her opinion that the victim was telling the truth\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).