Opinion ID: 2598178
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Detective Greer

Text: ¶ 48 Greer described a competency protocol she administered before interviewing C.M.D. Id. at 310. Greer tested C.M.D.'s ability to distinguish between a truth and a lie and asked the child to promise to tell the truth. Detective Greer then related what C.M.D. had told her about her sexual encounters with Candia. ¶ 49 The Court of Appeals held that, as in Kirkman, the detective told the jury that she tested both the child's competency and her truthfulness and further, that the child was telling the truth when she talked to the detective, thereby finding Detective Greer's testimony improper. Candia, 2005 WL 1753622, at , 2005 Wash.App. LEXIS 1871, at . Inconsistently, the Court of Appeals' majority noted, the detective did not affirmatively state that she believed or disbelieved the victim's allegations. Id. ¶ 50 The State contends that both Court of Appeals' decisions erroneously hold that testimony in which an officer describes the competency protocol constitutes constitutionally improper opinion of guilt or witness credibility. A detective's testimony as to the protocol utilized in interviews only provides context for the interview of a child victim and does not improperly comment of the truthfulness of the victim. ¶ 51 This interview protocol, including that the child promised to tell the truth, does not impermissibly infringe on the jury's province given that the same child takes the witness stand in front of the jury and swears under oath that the testimony given will be truthful. See RCW 5.28.020; ER 603. Thus, we do not find the testimony constitutes a manifest error of constitutional magnitude.