The State of Washington v. Charles L. Kirkman, Respondent the State of Washington v. Ruben Jaurez Candia

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that opinion testimony relating only indirectly to a child victim's credibility, if not objected to at trial, does not give rise to a 'manifest' constitutional error reviewable for the first time on appeal under RAP 2.5(a)(3), and it reversed both Court of Appeals decisions while affirming Kirkman's conviction of first degree child rape and Candia's four convictions of first degree rape of a child. The court reasoned that Dr. Stirling's examination testimony and the detectives' descriptions of child-interview competency protocols neither directly opined on the victims' credibility nor invaded the jury's province, and that manifest error in this context requires an explicit or almost explicit witness statement on an ultimate issue of fact. Justice Chambers concurred to emphasize that expert consistency testimony is not a comment on credibility. Justice Sanders dissented, contending the Sixth Amendment forbids expert testimony concerning an accuser's credibility and that both defendants were entitled to new trials.