Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Chandlergreen2 sentences2025In Chandler, the Supreme Court made that point expressly: “[T]he fact that state- ments are not categorically prohibited under the vouching rule does not mean that they are necessarily admissible.” 360 Or at 336 . 2025In Chandler, the Supreme Court made that point expressly: “[T]he fact that state- ments are not categorically prohibited under the vouching rule does not mean that they are necessarily admissible.” 360 Or at 336 . | 2 | 5 |
State v. Blackgreen2 sentences2025The vouching rule “prohibits a witness from making a direct comment, or one that is tantamount to a direct comment, on another witness’s credibility.” State v. Black, 364 Or 579, 585 , 437 P3d 1121 (2019). 2025The vouching rule “prohibits a witness from making a direct comment, or one that is tantamount to a direct comment, on another witness’s credibility.” State v. Black, 364 Or 579, 585 , 437 P3d 1121 (2019). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Odomsgreen2 sentences2019Chandler, 360 Or at 333 (discussing State v. Odoms, 313 Or 76, 82-83 , 829 P2d Cite as 301 Or App 572 (2019) 581 690 (1992)). 2016Id. | 1 | 2 |
McLaughlin v. Pedrogreen2 sentences2024The witnesses’ use of the word “victim” mostly entailed witnesses describ- ing their work investigating sex abuse crimes in the general sense, rather than referring to the specific complainants in this case as “victims.” For example, a property evidence clerk testified that the protocol for sexual assault reports includes “contacting the victim;” a detective described “pretext calls,” Cite as 336 Or App 9 (2024) 19 which require that “a victim” call the suspect to see if the suspect will provide incriminating statements over the phone; and another detective testified that he works for the “spe 2024See id. at 132 (“[T]he use of the term ‘victim’ to refer to the complaining witness or other wit- nesses * * * conveys the speaker’s belief that the accusers are credible.” (Emphasis added.)). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Laneygreen1 sentence2022Noting that the vouching rule applied not only to witnesses but to counsel’s statements, the court analyzed the various references to “victim.” Id. at 129. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Middletongreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Middleton, 294 Or at 438 (reversible error to admit opinion testimony from one witness on credibility of another witness). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Snidergreen2 sentences2016See State v. Snider, 296 Or 168, 172 , 674 P2d 585 (1983) (noting that “vice” of vouching testimony is that jury might give “special credence” to such testimony, “implying a guarantee of the witness’s veracity”). *331 Although the vouching rule 3 is an evidentiary rule, it is not codified in the Oregon Evidence Code. 2016See State v. Snider, 296 Or 168, 172 , 674 P2d 585 (1983) (noting that “vice” of vouching testimony is that jury might give “special credence” to such testimony, “implying a guarantee of the witness’s veracity”). *331 Although the vouching rule 3 is an evidentiary rule, it is not codified in the Oregon Evidence Code. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pickettgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Pickett, 246 Or App 62, 65 , 264 P3d 209 (2011), rev den, 351 Or 541 (2012) (vouching by medical witness not prejudicial where the defendant admitted to sexually abusing the victim and there was substantiating photographic evidence of the abuse); State v. Childs, 243 Or App 129, 131-32 , 259 P3d 77 , rev den, 350 Or 573 (2011) (medical witness vouching not likely to have affected the court’s verdict where there was photographic evidence corroborating the victim’s account of the abuse and the court explicitly eschewed any reliance on the expert testimony). 2015See, e.g., State v. Pickett, 246 Or App 62, 65 , 264 P3d 209 (2011), rev den, 351 Or 541 (2012) (vouching by medical witness not prejudicial where the defendant admitted to sexually abusing the victim and there was substantiating photographic evidence of the abuse); State v. Childs, 243 Or App 129, 131-32 , 259 P3d 77 , rev den, 350 Or 573 (2011) (medical witness vouching not likely to have affected the court’s verdict where there was photographic evidence corroborating the victim’s account of the abuse and the court explicitly eschewed any reliance on the expert testimony). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Torresgreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., State v. Pickett, 246 Or App 62, 65 , 264 P3d 209 (2011), rev den, 351 Or 541 (2012) (vouching by medical witness not prejudicial where the defendant admitted to sexually abusing the victim and there was substantiating photographic evidence of the abuse); State v. Childs, 243 Or App 129, 131-32 , 259 P3d 77 , rev den, 350 Or 573 (2011) (medical witness vouching not likely to have affected the court’s verdict where there was photographic evidence corroborating the victim’s account of the abuse and the court explicitly eschewed any reliance on the expert testimony). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lupoli
green
2 sentences2019The court's subsequent discussion of State v. Lupoli , 348 Or. 346 , 234 P.3d 117 (2010), also rests on the idea that, in considering the admissibility of an expert's testimony, a trial court must address objections under the rules of evidence in addition to the vouching rule. 2019The court's subsequent discussion of State v. Lupoli , 348 Or. 346 , 234 P.3d 117 (2010), also rests on the idea that, in considering the admissibility of an expert's testimony, a trial court must address objections under the rules of evidence in addition to the vouching rule. | 2 | 2019–2024 |
State v. Sanchez-Jacobo
green
2 sentences2020The vouching rule is not implicated, however, when a witness asserts his or her own truthfulness: “[A] witness does not impermissibly ‘vouch for’ or ‘bolster’ his or her own testimony by proclaiming truthfulness.” State v. Sanchez- Jacobo, 250 Or App 621, 631 , 282 P3d 880 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 280 (2013) (emphasis in original). 2020The vouching rule is not implicated, however, when a witness asserts his or her own truthfulness: “[A] witness does not impermissibly ‘vouch for’ or ‘bolster’ his or her own testimony by proclaiming truthfulness.” State v. Sanchez- Jacobo, 250 Or App 621, 631 , 282 P3d 880 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 280 (2013) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Waldorf v. Premo
green
1 sentence2019Chandler, 360 Or at 333 (discussing State v. Odoms, 313 Or 76, 82-83 , 829 P2d Cite as 301 Or App 572 (2019) 581 690 (1992)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Southard
green
2 sentences2019To understand why, we must start with State v. Southard , 347 Or. 127 , 218 P.3d 104 (2009). 2019To understand why, we must start with State v. Southard , 347 Or. 127 , 218 P.3d 104 (2009). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Beauvais
green
2 sentences2019Id. at 540 , 354 P.3d 680 . 2019Id. at 540 , 354 P.3d 680 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Charboneau
green
2 sentences2016Two prior decisions of this court are relevant to that assessment: Odoms, 313 Or 76 , and State v. Charboneau, 323 Or 38 , 913 P2d 308 (1996). *332 In Odoms , a detective testified at the defendant’s trial and recounted statements that the detective had made while interrogating the defendant indicating his belief that the victim was truthful. 313 Or at 79-80 . 2016Two prior decisions of this court are relevant to that assessment: Odoms, 313 Or 76 , and State v. Charboneau, 323 Or 38 , 913 P2d 308 (1996). *332 In Odoms , a detective testified at the defendant’s trial and recounted statements that the detective had made while interrogating the defendant indicating his belief that the victim was truthful. 313 Or at 79-80 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Curry v. Clackamas County
green
1 sentence2015See, e.g., State v. Pickett, 246 Or App 62, 65 , 264 P3d 209 (2011), rev den, 351 Or 541 (2012) (vouching by medical witness not prejudicial where the defendant admitted to sexually abusing the victim and there was substantiating photographic evidence of the abuse); State v. Childs, 243 Or App 129, 131-32 , 259 P3d 77 , rev den, 350 Or 573 (2011) (medical witness vouching not likely to have affected the court’s verdict where there was photographic evidence corroborating the victim’s account of the abuse and the court explicitly eschewed any reliance on the expert testimony). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Childs
neutral
2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Pickett, 246 Or App 62, 65 , 264 P3d 209 (2011), rev den, 351 Or 541 (2012) (vouching by medical witness not prejudicial where the defendant admitted to sexually abusing the victim and there was substantiating photographic evidence of the abuse); State v. Childs, 243 Or App 129, 131-32 , 259 P3d 77 , rev den, 350 Or 573 (2011) (medical witness vouching not likely to have affected the court’s verdict where there was photographic evidence corroborating the victim’s account of the abuse and the court explicitly eschewed any reliance on the expert testimony). 2015See, e.g., State v. Pickett, 246 Or App 62, 65 , 264 P3d 209 (2011), rev den, 351 Or 541 (2012) (vouching by medical witness not prejudicial where the defendant admitted to sexually abusing the victim and there was substantiating photographic evidence of the abuse); State v. Childs, 243 Or App 129, 131-32 , 259 P3d 77 , rev den, 350 Or 573 (2011) (medical witness vouching not likely to have affected the court’s verdict where there was photographic evidence corroborating the victim’s account of the abuse and the court explicitly eschewed any reliance on the expert testimony). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.