Opinion ID: 1995858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Standard of Review as to the Challenged Rebuttal Testimony

Text: This Court has held that [t]he determination of the truthfulness or credibility of a witness lies within the exclusive province of the jury. State v. Haslam, 663 A.2d 902, 905 (R.I.1995); see also State v. Lassiter, 836 A.2d 1096, 1107 (R.I.2003); State v. Miller, 679 A.2d 867, 872 (R.I. 1996). A corollary principle is that bolstering or vouching (which occurs when one witness offer[s] an opinion regarding the truthfulness or accuracy of another witness' testimony) is impermissible. State v. Webber, 716 A.2d 738, 742 (R.I. 1998); see also Lassiter, 836 A.2d at 1107. This Court will consider opinion testimony to be inadmissible bolstering or vouching if the opinion testimony has the same substantive import as if it squarely addressed and bolstered another witness's credibility   . Miller, 679 A.2d at 872 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Haslam, 663 A.2d at 905; State v. Tavares, 590 A.2d 867, 870-71 (R.I.1991). If we determine that certain testimony constitutes impermissible bolstering or vouching, our task in reviewing a trial justice's decision to admit such testimony is to determine whether the admission of the testimony constituted prejudicial error with respect to the defendant. Miller, 679 A.2d at 873. D