Purdie v. State

15 Citing cases

  1. Keck v. State

    2012 Ark. 145 (Ark. 2012)   Cited 5 times

    Keck urges that the failure to object to the foregoing testimony renders his counsel's representation ineffective. Keck relies primarily on two cases: Johnson v. State, 292 Ark. 632, 732 S.W.2d 817 (1987) and Purdie v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 658, ___ S.W.3d ___. These cases are distinguishable.

  2. Beard v. State

    2020 Ark. 62 (Ark. 2020)   Cited 13 times

    The court of appeals determined that the evidence was not overwhelming, and the error was not slight. Id. ; see alsoPurdie v. State , 2010 Ark. App. 658, 379 S.W.3d 541 (admission of forensic examiner’s testimony regarding the victim’s credibility not harmless when the only evidence supporting conviction was the victim’s inconsistent testimony and statements to third parties). We have also held that the erroneous exclusion of impeachment evidence was prejudicial when the only evidence supporting conviction was the victims’ testimony.

  3. Sampson v. State

    38 N.E.3d 985 (Ind. 2015)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that "the subtle distinction between an expert's testimony that a child has or has not been coached versus an expert's testimony that the child did or did not exhibit any ‘signs or indicators’ of coaching is insufficient to guard against the dangers that such testimony will constitute impermissible vouching...."

    One approach, similar to that expressed in Kindred and Archer, allows general testimony about signs of coaching but prohibits opinions on whether the child has in fact been coached. See, e.g., Purdie v. State, 379 S.W.3d 541, 547 (Ark.Ct.App.2010) (allowing forensic examiner to testify about the indicators she relies upon to determine the credibility of an alleged victim's statement but holding that “the admission of the forensic examiner's opinion that the victim's testimony was not fabricated or coached was an abuse of discretion.”); State v. James W., 87 Conn.App. 494, 866 A.2d 719, 731 (2005) (declaring that testimony discussing “behaviors typically exhibited by minors that have been coached” but “did not express an opinion as to whether the victim had been coached” did not constitute an assessment of the victim's credibility); State v. Wilson, 247 Kan. 87, 795 P.2d 336, 343–44 (1990) (upholding the admission of a statement by a social worker that “it would be highly unlikely for that [level of detail, vocabulary, sentence construction, and consistency over time] to happen in a child who's coached” and declaring the testimony did not impermissibly comment on the victim's credibility because the witness did not testify that

  4. Montgomery v. State

    2014 Ark. 122 (Ark. 2014)   Cited 11 times
    In Montgomery v. State, 2014 Ark. 122, a Rule 37 case, our supreme court held that the appellant was entitled to a new trial because a social worker from Arkansas Children's Hospital was allowed to testify that the victim's statement that she was digitally penetrated while others were in the room was "believable" and "plausible" because of her speculation that the sexual abuse could take place without coming to the attention of others nearby.

    See, e.g., Keck v. State, 2012 Ark. 145; Buford, 368 Ark. 87, 243 S.W.3d 300; Hill v. State, 337 Ark. 219, 988 S.W.2d 487 (1999); Logan, 299 Ark. 255, 773 S.W.2d 419. See also Purdie v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 658, 379 S.W.3d 541; Cox v. State, 93 Ark. App. 419, 220 S.W.3d 231 (2005). The rationale behind this rule is that such testimony invades the province of the jury.

  5. Warren v. State

    2021 Ark. App. 441 (Ark. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Purdie v. State, 2010 Ark.App. 658, 379 S.W.3d 541; Cox v. State, 93 Ark.App. 419, 220 S.W.3d 231 (2005). The rationale behind this rule is that such testimony invades the province of the jury.

  6. Barnum v. State

    2020 Ark. App. 523 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    To show that a circuit court abused its discretion, it must be established that the circuit court acted improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration, thereby causing prejudice. Id. A court's evidentiary ruling will not be reversed absent a showing of prejudice. E.g. , Purdie v. State , 2010 Ark. App. 658, at 7, 379 S.W.3d 541, 546. Arkansas appellate courts have recognized that an expert's testimony opining or commenting on the truthfulness of a victim's statement or testimony is generally inadmissible.

  7. Ralston v. State

    2019 Ark. App. 175 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 11 times
    In Ralston, our court held that Ralston "voluntarily made a statement linking his sexual frustrations with being unable to see boys."

    We cannot agree. 2010 Ark. App. 658, 379 S.W.3d 541. 93 Ark. App. 419, 220 S.W.3d 231 (2005).

  8. Harper v. State

    2019 Ark. App. 163 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 7 times

    testified repeatedly that she believed the victim to be highly credible. We also reversed in Purdie v. State , 2010 Ark. App. 658, 379 S.W.3d 541, because the interviewer reviewed the videotape of the interview with the jury and testified that she did not observe anything that led her to believe that the victim had been coached or that she was fabricating. Here, however, the videos of the interviews were not played for the jury, and Davidson did not testify about the victims or the allegations in this case.

  9. Sweeten v. State

    2018 Ark. App. 590 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 4 times

    This court reversed in Cox v. State , 93 Ark. App. 419, 220 S.W.3d 231 (2005), because the forensic interviewer testified repeatedly that she believed the victim to be highly credible. We also reversed in Purdie v. State , 2010 Ark. App. 658, 379 S.W.3d 541, because the interviewer reviewed the videotape of the interview with the jury and testified that she did not observe anything that led her to believe that the victim had been coached or that she was fabricating. Here, however, the videos of the interviews were not played for the jury, and Davidson did not testify about the victims or the allegations in this case.

  10. Pafford v. State

    2017 Ark. App. 700 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 8 times

    Additionally, this court will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a showing of prejudice. Purdie v. State , 2010 Ark. App. 658, at 7, 379 S.W.3d 541, 546. It is error for the court to permit an expert, in effect, to testify that the victim of a crime is telling the truth.