Opinion ID: 1690681
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: credibility of i.b.

Text: Buller claims the court erred in allowing Curran to testify to the credibility of I.B. The testimony Buller now complains of came in during his cross-examination of Curran: Q: Have you ever testified for the defense? A: I have testifiedNot in a criminal trial, I have testified for the defense in the sense that some of the adult males who have been in my perpetrators' group go to court, sometimes I testify that they have been good about coming to group and they admit what they did and some of that in terms of the judge making some kind of decision on probation or something like that. I have testified in the defense for adolescent perpetrators also in terms of the judgment, what could be done with the child and whether they need in-patient treatment or out-patient treatment. One of the things that happen is that if I interview a child and Q: Well, I think you have answered the question partially. But my question is, in [a] ... criminal child sexual abuse case, have you ever testified for the adult defendant? A: The problem with that is that I don't get asked to do that. If I say the person didn't do it, the prosecutor doesn't prosecute them. Q: Have you ever testified for an adult defendant in a criminal case? A: No. As soon as I say to the prosecutor, I do not find in my interviews anything that supports that this person did, and the fact that someone thought he had was a misstatement, someone didn't understand what the child was saying. State asserts that if this testimony was improper, it was invited error. [A] party to a criminal proceeding will not be permitted to allege an error in proceedings in the trial court in which he himself acquiesced, or which was invited or induced by him. State v. Stahl, 416 N.W.2d 269, 270 (S.D.1987); State v. Johnson, 272 N.W.2d 304, 306 (S.D.1978); State v. Parker, 263 N.W.2d 679, 684 (S.D.1978); United States v. Garrett, 727 F.2d 1003, 1012 (11th Cir.1984) affd 471 U.S. 773, 105 S.Ct. 2407, 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985). The defense cannot invite error and then benefit therefrom. However, Curran's statements were not invited. As shown above, Curran did not directly testify to the truthfulness of I.B.'s statements. She responded to questions regarding her past trial experience and volunteered self laudatory claims of near omniscience or omnipotence. These statements were neither responsive nor invited and indirectly reflected on the truthfulness of I.B.'s statements. In Floody, the expert testified to the spontaneity of the statements made by a victim during an interview. Floody held that since the expert did not directly testify to the truthfulness of the victim, the statements did not invade the province of the jury. Floody, 481 N.W.2d at 249. However, Buller did not object nor move to strike this testimony and thus failed to preserve this issue on appeal. Garton, 390 N.W.2d at 63; Dirk, 364 N.W.2d at 123; Big Head, 363 N.W.2d at 563.