Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure Evidence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellate Panel Weighs Officer Vouching and Timing of Impeachment in State v. Herrera
Summary
Appellant argued that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object when law‑enforcement testimony vouched for a victim and when the defense was prompted to label witnesses "liars"; the State said counsel’s choices were reasonable strategic decisions and that the evidence would be admissible as impeachment.
Rachel Phillips Ainscough, appellate counsel for Martin Robert Herrera, told the Utah Court of Appeals that trial counsel performed deficiently in three respects, focusing the panel’s attention on what she described as impermissible vouching and improper credibility questioning by the State. "There were 3 instances of improper credibility testimony," Ainscough said, explaining that an officer testified in a way that bolstered the victim and that the State also elicited answers from Herrera that asked him to label witnesses "liars."
Ainscough relied on the court’s recent precedent in cases the parties referenced (including Bishop Garcia) to argue that such testimony and questioning require an objection and, absent that objection, may amount to deficient performance. She told the panel that repeated, prejudicial questions and the officer’s credibility statements primed the jury against Herrera and that counsel could have sought a curative instruction or objected under the rules governing testimony about another witness’s credibility.
Judges put the claim into context: several panelists observed that Bishop Garcia addressed more direct bolstering and that this record contains corroborating evidence—medical records of injury, a friend’s identification placing Herrera at the scene and other testimony—that distinguishes the cases cited by appellant. The State (William Haines) argued counsel’s strategic choices could reasonably include permitting the testimony to emerge during the State’s case in chief to avoid highlighting it and to preserve the opportunity to present the defendant’s testimony.
Panel questioning focused on Strickland prejudice: assuming objectionable questioning and counsel error, would the defendant still have been convicted on the record now before the court? The State emphasized corroborating evidence and argued that even if some testimony should have been excluded, it would not have changed the outcome. The State also pointed out that the impeachment exception permits certain inconsistent statements to be used if the defendant testifies.
Appellant urged that allowing the officer to testify about why he arrested Herrera and permitting the line of questioning that asked the defendant to brand other witnesses "liars" unfairly undermined Herrera’s credibility before he presented his testimony. The court took the matter under advisement and said it would issue an opinion in due course.
