State of Montana v. Charles Michael Byrne

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court held that the defendant’s motion in limine preserved his challenge to testimony and argument bolstering the alleged victim’s credibility. The Court concluded that the State improperly elicited credibility-vouching testimony from witnesses and improperly characterized the victim as a reliable witness during closing argument. It reversed the convictions for three counts of felony sexual intercourse without consent and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. A motion in limine preserved Byrne's challenge because the District Court was directly faced with the issue, the State stipulated to the motion, and the court definitively granted the stipulated motions.
2. A prosecutor may not elicit testimony from witnesses, including experts, that directly or indirectly vouches for the credibility of an alleged child sexual-abuse victim, absent the narrow exception for properly qualified expert testimony involving a very young child who testifies and exhibits contradictory behavior.
3. A prosecutor may not personally tell the jury that a witness is reliable or otherwise express an opinion that the witness is truthful.
4. The cumulative effect of repeated credibility-vouching testimony and the prosecutor's personal credibility comment deprived Byrne of his constitutional right to a fair trial and required reversal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Byrne's motion in limine preserved his challenge to the State's elicitation of testimony vouching for M.G.'s credibility.
2. Whether the State improperly elicited expert and lay testimony bolstering M.G.'s credibility.
3. Whether the prosecutor improperly expressed a personal opinion about M.G.'s reliability during closing argument.
4. Whether the cumulative effect of the credibility-vouching testimony and argument deprived Byrne of a fair trial.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded