Podcast Episode 6 - Patterson v. State, (A05A2100) - Prohibits witness from giving opinion on another witness’s creditbility
In Patterson v. State, the full Court of Appeals reversed Smith v. State, 257 Ga. App. 88 (2002), reestablishing a long line of cases which prohibit an expert witness from giving an opinion on another witness’s credibility and prohibits the witness from expressing an opinion on the ultimate issue of the defendant’s guilt for the purpose of rehabilitating the credibility of a witness whose veracity was attacked.Â
In this case the State had put up an expert to testify that she believed the victim did not fabricate the charges against the defendant.
Click here to listen to the podcast.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 17th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Just a question. There is currently a Habeas case similiar to Patterson still pending a ruling. In this original trial there were several instances where wittnesses voiced their opinion as to the veracity of the victims testimony. The investigating detective even stated in her testimony “I know he did it”. Does the Patterson reversal set a precident sufficient to influence the ultimate outcome of the habeas case.
Thank you.
April 17th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Good question. The witnesses commenting on another witness’s credibility…I think that is improper. However, I don’t think the officer’s statement has anything to do with this case. It may be inappropriate for some other reason, but it is not commenting on another witness’s credibility.
As long as the issue was preserved and raised on appeal, it should be considered by the habeas court.