Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): believed the victims and that the defendant was not being truthful. Id. at 325-26. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to redact those statements as impermissible comments on credibility. Id. at 327. On review before the Supreme Court, the issue was how the vouching rule, which developed as a principle applicable to in-court testimony, applies to a witness’s out-of-court comments on credibility. Id. at 331. To answer that question, the court was required to reconcile the apparent tension between its decisions in State v. Odoms, 313 Or 76, 83, 829 P2d 690 (1992) (explaining that “a relevant out-of-court statement, recounted at trial, generally may not be excluded merely because it is phrased in the form of an opinion”), and State v. Charboneau, 323 Or 38, 48, 913 P2d 308 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Chandler, 360 Or at 333 (“Whereas Charboneau 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error (B) holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility (C) holding that hospitalization of witnesss wife and his desire to be by her side was not a substantial basis for admitting witnesss testimony from first trial (D) holding that agents testimony as to witnesss identification was not hearsay (E) holding that it was not erroneous for committing court to refuse to admit an affidavit from a private investigator that provided evidence of a witnesss lack of credibility when the affidavit would not have explained away the witnesss testimony but only challenged its credibility
Output (English): holding that agents testimony as to witnesss identification was not hearsay