Dept. of Human Services v. G. C. P.

“A direct comment on the credibility of a witness or a statement that is ‘tantamount’ to stating that another witness is truthful is not admissible, even if it is offered as part of a discussion of an admissible medical diagnosis.” State v. Beauvais, 357 Or 524, 543, 354 P3d 680 (2015).

Father appealed the juvenile court’s judgment asserting jurisdiction over his son. Father assigned error to the juvenile court’s admission of the testimony of a pediatrician who commented on the child’s credibility. A pediatrician examined the child after Mother noticed bruises on the child following a visit with Father. The pediatrician testified that he observed injuries consistent with physical abuse, and that the child told him, “Daddy did it.” The pediatrician further testified, “I trust a child when they say something like that.” On appeal, Father assigned error to the juvenile court’s overruling his objections as to the pediatrician’s testimony as impermissible vouching. DHS conceded that the pediatrician’s testimony should have been excluded as an impermissible comment on the credibility of another witness. “A direct comment on the credibility of a witness or a statement that is ‘tantamount’ to stating that another witness is truthful is not admissible, even if it is offered as part of a discussion of an admissible medical diagnosis.” State v. Beauvais,357 Or 524, 543, 354 P3d 680 (2015). The Court found that the juvenile court erred by admitting the pediatrician’s testimony that provided an opinion on the truthfulness of the son and that the error was not harmless. Reversed.