Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
State v. Caballero, 2022-NCSC-136, ___ N.C. ___ (Dec. 16, 2022)
In this Durham County case, the Supreme Court modified and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision finding no plain error when admitting testimony regarding the strength of the state’s principal witness.
In 2016, defendant was indicted for murder and related charges for the death of his neighbor. At trial, the victim’s wife was the principal witness testifying regarding defendant’s assault and stabbing of her husband. A sheriff’s deputy testified regarding this witness’s consistence when recounting the events and noted that he pressed her many times and she did not change her story, remaining “resolute and rock solid.” Defendant did not object to the testimony at trial but raised the issue on appeal.
Reviewing defendant’s appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that admission of the deputy’s testimony did not rise to the level of plain error. The court first explained that admission of the testimony in question was improper, as having a witness vouch for the credibility of another witness is not typically allowed. Although the state argued that this testimony represented evidence of prior consistent statements, the court disagreed, noting that the admitted testimony was not simply repeating statements the deputy heard from the witness, showing consistency. Instead, the deputy’s testimony offered a full description of questioning the witness and why her consistency represented a credible account of the events. The court also explained that Rule of Evidence 608(a) did not allow the deputy’s testimony, as the witness’s credibility was not attacked by opinion or reputation. Slip Op. at 25.
Despite establishing that the deputy’s testimony was improperly admitted, the court could not find plain error. Other sources supported the consistency and credibility of the witness’s testimony, and physical evidence in the record also supported defendant’s conviction. As a result, although the court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals, the defendant’s conviction was affirmed.
Justice Barringer, joined by Chief Justice Newby and Justice Berger, dissented in part and concurred in the result, disagreeing that the admission of the deputy’s testimony was improper but agreeing that the conviction should be affirmed. Id. at 32.