State v. Kirkman

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court, sitting en banc, reversed two Court of Appeals decisions that had overturned jury convictions of Charles L. Kirkman (first degree child rape) and Ruben Jaurez Candia (four counts of first degree rape of a child) and affirmed both convictions. Both defendants, for the first time on appeal, argued that testimony from the examining physician (Dr. Stirling) and investigating detectives (Kerr and Greer) improperly bolstered the child victims' credibility and invaded the jury's constitutional province. The court held that opinion testimony relating only indirectly to a victim's credibility, if not objected to at trial, is not 'manifest' constitutional error reviewable under RAP 2.5(a)(3); manifest error in this context requires an explicit or almost explicit witness statement on an ultimate issue of fact plus a showing of actual prejudice. Justice Chambers concurred, defending consistency-based expert testimony as proper under ER 702; Justice Sanders dissented, contending the testimony violated the Sixth Amendment by intruding on the jury's exclusive credibility role and would have granted both defendants new trials.