State v. Sperou, 365 Or. 121

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court considered whether testimony from six other women concerning alleged prior sexual abuse and repeated references to the accusers as "victims" deprived the defendant of a fair trial. The court held that, where the alleged abuse was supported only by the accusers' testimony and the defendant denied that any abuse occurred, witnesses' use of the term "victim" constituted impermissible vouching. The court remanded for a new trial because the error was not harmless, making it unnecessary to resolve the challenge to the other-acts evidence.

Holdings

1. When a defendant denies that any crime occurred and the accuser's own testimony is the only evidence of the alleged criminal conduct, a state's witness's use of the term "victim" to describe the accuser constitutes impermissible vouching because it conveys the witness's opinion that the accuser is telling the truth. Such testimony is categorically inadmissible.
2. A prosecutor's use of the term "victim" is not categorically prohibited. Its propriety depends on context, including whether it is a fair comment on the evidence or an improper expression of the prosecutor's personal opinion about credibility.
3. The trial court's error in allowing the state's witnesses to repeatedly refer to the accusers as victims was not harmless and required reversal.
4. If the state again seeks to introduce the six women's other-acts testimony, the trial court must apply the methodology in State v. Baughman: separately assess each theory of relevance under OEC 404 and conduct OEC 403 balancing for each witness's anticipated testimony.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by allowing the state's witnesses to refer to SC and the other accusers as "victims" when defendant denied that any crime occurred and the accusers' testimony was the only evidence of abuse.
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying defendant's pretrial request to prohibit all uses of the term "victim" by the prosecutor.
3. Whether the repeated use of the term "victim" by the state's witnesses was harmless.
4. Whether the trial court properly admitted the six other women's testimony concerning alleged prior sexual abuse under OEC 404(3) and OEC 404(4).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded