Opinion ID: 2598459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: forensic interviewer's testimony

Text: [¶ 10] In his appellate brief, appellant argues that the testimony of Lynn Story Huylar (Huylar), a forensic interviewer, impermissibly vouched for the victim's credibility. At oral argument, appellant also generally contended that the district court erred by admitting into evidence Huylar's videotaped interviews with the victim as prior consistent statements pursuant to W.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B). According to appellant, other authority [2] provides good reasoning concerning whether, despite our precedent, a temporal requirement should be applied in admitting such evidence, and that admitting Huylar's testimony and her videotaped interviews with the victim essentially resulted in a parade of witnesses. However, appellant's oral argument did not precisely apply either the rule's requirements or the referenced authority to the particular circumstances and nuances of the instant case. [¶ 11] In response to the vouching issue, the State asserts that Huylar did not opine in her testimony that the victim was credible or truthful, but assisted the jury in understanding the interview process, the ability of a child of this age to communicate, and the behavioral characteristics of sexual misconduct victims.... According to the State, this testimony did not directly comment on the victim's truthfulness, notwithstanding that information concerning the child's ability to communicate had the likely incidental effect of enhancing the child's credibility.