People v. Bridges
Decision Date | 22 May 2014 |
Docket Number | Court of Appeals No. 11CA2033 |
Citation | 410 P.3d 512 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Patrick Sean BRIDGES, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Erin K. Grundy, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff–Appellee
Douglas K. Wilson, Public Defender, Alan Kratz, Deputy Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant–Appellant
Opinion by JUDGE ASHBY
¶ 1 Defendant, Patrick Sean Bridges, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of sexual assault on a child, among other charges. We reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.
¶ 2 S.B., Bridges' daughter, alleged that he had sexually abused her. The People charged Bridges with three counts of sexual assault on a child—pattern of abuse, three counts of aggravated incest, and one count of enticement of a child.
¶ 3 At trial, there was no physical evidence that Bridges had sexually abused S.B., and the only direct evidence of the abuse was S.B.'s trial testimony and the video of her forensic interview in which she described the abuse. S.B. both testified at trial and stated in her interview that A.Q., her stepsister, had witnessed the abuse and had herself been abused by Bridges.
¶ 4 In her own forensic interview that was admitted at trial, A.Q. stated that S.B. told her several times about being abused by Bridges. However, at trial, A.Q. testified that she had not witnessed any abuse of S.B., S.B. never told her about being abused by Bridges, and she had not been abused by Bridges herself.
¶ 5 The forensic interviewer who conducted both interviews also testified at trial after being qualified and accepted as an expert in "forensic interviewing including the part and parcel of the forensic interviewing looking for coaching, deception, those types of things." In response to questions from the jury, he testified, over Bridges' objection, that he concluded that S.B. and A.Q. had not been coached before their respective interviews.
¶ 6 The jury found Bridges guilty of one count of sexual assault on a child (no pattern), one count of aggravated incest, and one count of enticement of a child. The trial court convicted and sentenced him accordingly.
¶ 7 Bridges appeals, first arguing that the court erred by allowing the forensic interviewer to testify that S.B. and A.Q. had not been coached in their respective forensic interviews. Because we agree that admitting this testimony was reversible error, we do not address any additional arguments on appeal.
¶ 8 We review a court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. See Davis v. People, 2013 CO 57, ¶ 13, 310 P.3d 58. If we determine that the court abused its discretion, we must then decide whether the aggrieved party is entitled to relief. The proper standard of review for this decision turns on whether the court's error implicated that party's constitutional rights, and whether the error was preserved.
¶ 9 Here, Bridges preserved the error by a contemporaneous objection. But, the alleged error was not constitutional in nature. See id. ( ).
¶ 10 Preserved, nonconstitutional error requires reversal unless the error was harmless. See id. at ¶ 13 ; People v. Gaffney, 769 P.2d 1081, 1088 (Colo.1989) ; People v. Pena–Rodriguez, 2012 COA 193, ¶ 64, 2012 WL 5457362 ; see also Crim. P. 52(a). Harmless error is any error that does not substantially influence the verdict or affect the fairness of the proceedings. See Tevlin v. People, 715 P.2d 338, 342 (Colo.1986). Applying this standard, we must vacate Bridges' convictions unless we can say, based on the entire record, that the error did not substantially influence the verdict or impair the fairness of the trial. See Davis, ¶ 13. We are unable to do so.
¶ 11 "In Colorado, neither lay nor expert witnesses may give opinion testimony that another witness was telling the truth on a specific occasion." People v. Wittrein, 221 P.3d 1076, 1081 (Colo.2009) (citing CRE 608(a) ). However, when a witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked, the court may admit testimony about that witness's general character for truthfulness. See CRE 608(a) ; Gaffney, 769 P.2d at 1085–86. The jury is allowed to consider evidence about a witness's general character for truthfulness but not evidence that a witness was telling the truth on a specific occasion because it is solely the jury's responsibility to determine whether a particular witness's testimony or statement is truthful. See People v. Lopez, 129 P.3d 1061, 1066 (Colo.App.2005) ().
¶ 12 Here, video of portions of S.B.'s and A.Q.'s respective forensic interviews were admitted into evidence and played for the jury at trial. The forensic interviewer testified as an expert witness that coaching includes telling a child to say things that are untrue and encouraging a child to withhold information. He further testified generally about how to determine during a forensic interview whether a child has been coached, and about the interview techniques he uses to elicit the child's own version of events in spite of any coaching the child may have received.
¶ 13 At the conclusion of the forensic interviewer's testimony, the jury submitted several questions to the court. Over Bridges' objection, the forensic interviewer answered the following jury questions:
¶ 14 Although the court ruled that this testimony did not comment on S.B.'s or A.Q.'s credibility, it failed to articulate, either for the record or the jury, on what grounds it was properly admitted. We can see none.
¶ 15 Testimony about the credibility of another witness is admissible if it explains or provides context for why the interviewer conducted an interview in a particular manner. See Davis, ¶ 19 (). An interviewer may also help the jury make its own credibility determination by describing general indicia of coaching or untruthfulness in interviewees. See People v. Rogers, 800 P.2d 1327, 1330 (Colo.App.1990) ( ). But an interviewer may not usurp the jury's role of assessing the credibility of a particular witness's statement by offering an ultimate conclusion about the statement's truthfulness. See Lopez, 129 P.3d at 1066.
¶ 16 Here, the forensic interviewer's testimony that S.B. and A.Q. had not been coached constituted conclusions about their truthfulness in their respective interviews. This was impermissible opinion testimony about the credibility of another witness's statement. The court erred by admitting it over Bridges' objection. See Davis, ¶ 19 ; People v. Eppens, 979 P.2d 14, 17–18 (Colo.1999) ( ); Gaffney, 769 P.2d at 1088 ( ); People v. Oliver, 745 P.2d 222, 225 (Colo.1987) ( ); see also State v. Adams, 5 P.3d 642, 648 (Utah 2000) ( ); Kindred v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1245, 1258 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) () .
¶ 17 We next conclude that this error was not constitutional in nature. See Davis, ¶ 13 ( ). Because this error was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Short
...responsibility to determine whether a particular witness's testimony or statement is truthful." People v. Bridges , 2014 COA 65, ¶ 11, 410 P.3d 512. "This rule applies to both direct and indirect implications of a [witness's] truthfulness." Venalonzo v. People , 2017 CO 9, ¶ 32, 388 P.3d 86......
-
People v. Baker
...the evidence and determinations of credibility — matters that are for the jury alone to decide. See People v. Bridges , 2014 COA 65, ¶ 11, 410 P.3d 512 ("[I]t is solely the jury's responsibility to determine whether a particular witness's testimony or statement is truthful."); People v. Dun......
-
People ex rel. D.F.A.E.
...told the truth on a specific occasion. Venalonzo v. People , 2017 CO 9, ¶ 32, 388 P.3d 868 ; People v. Bridges , 2014 COA 65, ¶ 11, 410 P.3d 512. This rule applies with equal force to direct and indirect implications of a child's truthfulness. Venalonzo , ¶ 32. ¶ 65 Thus, a witness may not ......
-
People v. Vidauri
...expert cannot express an "ultimate" conclusion about truthfulness of another witness's testimony. People v. Bridges , 2014 COA 65, ¶ 15, 410 P.3d 512. ¶ 63 An expert witness may present lay testimony if the lay portion satisfies the requirement of CRE 701. See Salcedo v. People , 999 P.2d 8......
-
Rule 608 EVIDENCE OF CHARACTER AND CONDUCT OF WITNESS
...credibility of the witnesses, particularly in the forensic interviews, was the central issue in the case. People v. Bridges, 2014 COA 65, 410 P.3d 512. "Were they lying?" type questions are categorically improper. Witnesses are prohibited from commenting on the veracity of another witness, ......