Adkins v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Adkins's convictions, holding that the prosecutor did not improperly vouch for the complainant because the challenged questions established the foundation for admitting her prior statements and the arguments were tied to evidence and permissible inferences. The court also held that no manifest necessity required a sua sponte mistrial based on the complainant's violation of the witness-sequestration instruction, and that defense counsel's tactical decision not to request a mistrial waived the claim.