Opinion ID: 4528310
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Inconsistent Witness Statements

Text: [¶35] When Paquin cross-examined a Kennebunkport police detective, he asked, “When you interviewed the two alleged victims, did you notice any inconsistencies in their stories? Did they match?” The State objected and the following exchange took place at sidebar: [PAQUIN]: Judge, he’s a trained detective. He can—he’s got the ability to judge whether someone’s credible or not. [STATE]: So, Judge, the State’s objection is he absolutely cannot judge someone’s credibility. That’s the purview of the jury and the jury alone. . . . For example, without requiring that trial courts employ any particular language, the court in this 9 case could have made its instruction concerning Counts 1-9 and 30-31 more complete by saying (modification in italics): The indictment alleges that each offense was committed on or about a specific period of time in each particular count. The specific date of the alleged crime need not be proven. It is enough if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense charged was committed by the defendant and that, concerning Counts 1-9 and Counts 30-31, each offense was committed before the alleged victim reached his fourteenth birthday. See supra ¶ 31. 19 [PAQUIN]: I’m asking for factual information regarding visits and times and when people were there. COURT: Is there a specific statement that you are seeking to illuminate as inconsistent, or are you just asking generally? [PAQUIN]: Kind of asking generally. COURT: The objection’s sustained. [¶36] “We review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence for clear error or abuse of discretion.” State v. Tieman, 2019 ME 60, ¶ 12, 207 A.3d 618. It is well established that credibility determinations are within the sole province of the jury. See State v. Sweeney, 2004 ME 123, ¶ 11, 861 A.2d 43 (“Questions that ask a witness to give an opinion of another witness’s veracity are improper because determining the credibility of a witness is the sole province of the fact-finder.”). Paquin argues that the credibility of the alleged victims was not implicated by his question because he was not asking the detective whether he believed one or the other, but rather whether there were any inconsistencies in their accounts as a factual matter. [¶37] Setting aside the issue of whether Paquin’s question called for an improper credibility opinion, the court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the State’s objection because whether the detective discerned any inconsistencies in the alleged victims’ accounts was of limited relevance given 20 Paquin’s opportunity to cross-examine them. See id. (“One witness’s opinion of another witness’s truthfulness is not helpful to the jury when the jury has the opportunity to hear both witnesses.”); M.R. Evid. 403. Paquin was then free to highlight any perceived inconsistencies in their respective accounts during his closing argument.