Opinion ID: 2542678
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Vouching for credibility of victim

Text: [¶41] Ms. Cazier claims that Officer Malik improperly vouched for the credibility of the victim, by saying Mr. Cazier looked like a whipped pup and in my mind, I guess, I believed that he had been beat. The description of Mr. Cazier as a whipped pup arose during Officer Malik's testimony during the State's case-in-chief when he was describing his contact with Mr. Cazier on March 17, 2004: [Prosecutor]: When you saw [Mr. Cazier], what was his demeanor? [Malik]: I guess I'll say he looked like a whipped pup. He wouldn't make eye contact. He would always look down. Slumped over. You could hardly understand what he had to say. He was hard to understand. (Emphasis added.) There was no objection to the use of the phrase whipped pup. As the trial progressed, defense counsel pursued a strategy to discredit Officer Malik's conclusions as lacking impartiality and resulting from a hasty and predetermined investigation. [¶42] During the State's rebuttal case, Officer Malik testified concerning his contact with the Caziers in January 2004, prior to his investigation in March. On cross examination, defense counsel questioned Officer Malik regarding his impressions of the Caziers at that time, challenging his ability to read people and interpret relationship dynamics: [Defense counsel]: Okay. Assessing the dominant party, how do you tell  by talking to them, is it the one that talks the most? [Officer Malik]: Well, it's kind of obvious  I think pretty much anybody could see that  that [Mr. Cazier], especially at that point in time, he wouldn't even look at me. I mean, he would look down at his  at the desk. He would look down at his hands. I would ask him a question. I couldn't hardly hear what he had to say. He  he  I think I said this before in the  in the previous hearings, that he looked like a whipped pup. That's exactly what he  Q. I remember that and I was going to ask you that about yesterday. You mentioned when he came in on the 16th  or the 17th of March that he looked like a whipped pup. His head was down, he wouldn't look at you, etc., etc. A. Um-hum. Q. And I guess that struck me from reading the affidavits of police officers, like some of you in your agency  I don't know if I've ever read any from you, but they always say  describe those same things. They say from My training and experience, I know these to be signs of deception. Have you ever read anything like that, looking away, not making eye contact, looking down at the ground? A. Well, we learn to read people and that's not what I read from him. It wasn't deception that I was seeing. This was  he was  he just looked whipped. 1. But looking at the ground, looking away, not making eye contact, those are things that are taught to you as signs of deception, aren't they? ... A. Well, they can be interpreted that way if they are  like I said, if you are there, you know the difference between what I'm talking about as far as deception and  and I guess, in a way, he was deceiving me because, in my mind, I guess, I believed that he had been beat. (Emphasis added.) [¶43] We analyze Ms. Cazier's claim in terms of plain error because there was no objection at trial to Officer Malik's testimony on the basis of impermissible vouching and also because the prosecution did not pose questions to elicit testimony vouching for Mr. Cazier's credibility. Mitchell v. State, 2003 WY 160, ¶ 11, 81 P.3d 180, 183 (Wyo. 2003); Dudley, 951 P.2d at 1178-79; Curl v. State, 898 P.2d 369, 374 (Wyo. 1995). We review the record to determine if the officer is implying that he believed or held an opinion with respect to the victim's version of the events surrounding the assault. Whiteplume v. State, 841 P.2d 1332, 1339-40 (Wyo. 1992). If the officer intended to impliedly vouch for the truth of the victim's accusations, no corroborating evidence exists, and the central jury issue is the victim's credibility, we will find reversible error when our review of all of the circumstances demonstrates prejudice to the extent that our confidence in the verdict is undermined. Id. at 1340-41; Dudley, 951 P.2d at 1180. [¶44] Ms. Cazier summarily brands Officer Malik's isolated statements as impermissible vouching, but the record reveals a context for these comments. Officer Malik did not volunteer a belief in Mr. Cazier's version of the events. He was explaining the basis for his opinion that Ms. Cazier was the dominant party, which rebutted her testimony that the violence in the marriage was mutual or was caused by Mr. Cazier. When Officer Malik mentioned the description of whipped pup, defense counsel was reminded of a line of questioning he had forgotten to pursue during the State's case-in-chief. Defense counsel seized upon that opportunity, attempting to demonstrate what Officer Malik had interpreted could have been consistent with deception by Mr. Cazier. Officer Malik conceded that possibility because in January when Mr. Cazier was reporting that he had inflicted his own injuries, Officer Malik did not find his story believable. [¶45] Officer Malik's expression of belief does not amount to impermissible vouching for the credibility of Mr. Cazier. It did not concern the truth of Mr. Cazier's accusations leading to the felony charge. It pertained to a story told about a different, earlier incident. More importantly, Officer Malik explained that in January he did not believe Mr. Cazier's story. We agree with the State's characterization that Officer Malik's testimony occurred as a result of defense counsel's questions, and ... the defense used this testimony as part of the defense strategy to cast doubt upon the credibility of [Mr.] Cazier as a witness and upon the thoroughness and impartiality of [Officer] Malik's investigation. We conclude that impermissible vouching did not occur.