noting that “lay witnesses are prohibited from testifying as to another witness's veracity”
How later courts described this case
- noting that “lay witnesses are prohibited from testifying as to another witness's veracity”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Frederick N. Young, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 73} I must respectfully dissent.
*695
{¶ 74} While I agree with the majority that the testimony by R.L.’s mother that her daughter was telling the truth about the rape was a clear violation of the rule enunciated in
State v. Boston,
and that the testimony was not invited error, I find the corroborating testimony by others, particularly that of J.S., H.G., and, indeed, the alleged victim’s mother, as recounted in the majority opinion at ¶ 7-24, sufficient, if believed by a jury, as it obviously was, to render the mother’s testimony as the veracity of her child harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury can readily discount a mother’s testimony shielding her daughter much more easily than a physician’s testimony as to the veracity of the alleged rape victim, which was the case in
Boston.
{¶ 75} Indeed, the majority actually finds that the verdict here was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and for the same reasons cited by the majority for that finding at the end of its opinion, I find that the
Boston
error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
{¶ 76} I would affirm.