Opinion ID: 2169046
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bolstering Testimony

Text: Appellant next argues that the trial court erred when it permitted Valleri Mason to testify regarding an interview with M.W. Defense counsel objected to Mason's testimony before she took the stand, arguing that her testimony would only serve to bolster M.W. and that it lacked any probative value. The trial court overruled the objection and permitted Mason to testify. Upon review, we conclude that Mason did not bolster M.W.'s testimony and, therefore, no error occurred. Mason is a forensic interviewer with Families and Children First, an independent agency, who interviewed M.W. about the rape allegations. She testified regarding her qualifications, her methods of interviewing children, and M.W.'s demeanor during the interview. Mason did not comment on M.W.'s character for truthfulness, nor did she give an opinion as to the veracity of M.W.'s claims. We first note that M.W.'s credibility had been attacked prior to Mason taking the stand. On cross-examination of M.W., defense counsel suggested that someone had coached her about what to say. Defense counsel also asked M.W. if she had discussed her testimony with Mason, or if Mason had suggested certain terms to use during her testimony. We conclude that Mason's testimony regarding her interview methods was probative and admissible to refute the suggestion that Mason had coached M.W.'s testimony. Furthermore, no improper bolstering occurred. Mason did not give an opinion as to whether M.W. had been raped, nor did she comment on M.W.'s character for truthfulness. Cf. Hall v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 321, 323 (Ky.1993) (It was clearly improper for therapist to give her opinion as to whether victims had been sexually abused and to offer an opinion that victim's testimony was most likely accurate.). While Mason did testify about M.W.'s demeanor during the interview, she did not compare her demeanor to less credible interviewees. Cf. Bell v. Commonwealth, 245 S.W.3d 738, 745 (Ky.2008) ( overruled on other grounds by Harp v. Commonwealth, 266 S.W.3d 813 (Ky.2008)) (Clearly implicit in [the social worker's] description of K.T. as `spontaneous' and `unrehearsed,' as opposed to alleged victims who sound `rehearsed' or `canned,' was her opinion that because of K.T.'s manner of speaking, she was being truthful.) There was no error.