finding interviewer’s testimony, that the victim’s penchant for correcting the interviewer’s misstatements was a “hallmark of credibility,” admissible because the comment was not directed to victim’s trial testimony nor to her overall credibility as a witness, but was merely a comment as to the interviewer’s ability to assess victim’s believability in the story related to the interviewer
How later courts described this case
- finding interviewer’s testimony, that the victim’s penchant for correcting the interviewer’s misstatements was a “hallmark of credibility,” admissible because the comment was not directed to victim’s trial testimony nor to her overall credibility as a witness, but was merely a comment as to the interviewer’s ability to assess victim’s believability in the story related to the interviewer
- finding expert’s testimony that the victim’s penchant for correction during her interview was “one of the hallmarks of credibility for kids” was not directed to the victim’s overall 8 credibility as a witness but, instead, was merely a comment on the expert’s ability to assess the victim’s believability in the story related to the expert
- holding testimony about victim exhibiting behavior consistent with CSAAS and victim's behavior being "extremely typical" among sexual abuse victims did not directly or implicitly vouch for victim's credibility
- noting that victim's statements were corroborated by physical evidence she had been abused, by testimony of other witnesses, and in part by defendant's confession
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHN E. PARRISH, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached. I respectfully suggest that since the issues discussed in the principal opinion were not preserved' for appellate review and are presented to this court as allegations of *624 plain error, they do not warrant discussion other than that a review of the record with respect to the complaints appellant now makes discloses no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. State v. Nunley, 992 S.W.2d 892, 894-95 (Mo.App.1999). The evidence at trial strongly supports the guilty verdict rendered in the case. I concur in the decision to affirm.