State v. Kehoe

722                  October 30, 2024             No. 765

         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                 STATE OF OREGON

                   STATE OF OREGON,
                   Plaintiff-Respondent,
                             v.
                  MATTHEW N. KEHOE,
               aka Matthew Nicholas Kehoe,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
              Multnomah County Circuit Court
                   22CR15496; A179616

  Christopher A. Ramras, Judge.
  Submitted September 25, 2024.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Peter G. Klym, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Kate E. Morrow, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Powers, Judge, and Pagán,
Judge.
  PAGÁN, J.
  Affirmed.
Cite as 

 (2024)                             723

        PAGÁN, J.
          A jury found defendant guilty of fourth-degree
assault, ORS 163.160. At trial, there was no dispute that
defendant struck the complaining witness, but defendant
argued that he did so in self-defense. On appeal, in two
assignments of error, defendant argues that the trial court
plainly erred in failing to intervene when both the arresting
officer and the prosecutor repeatedly referred to the complaining witness, T, as a victim. We conclude that the trial
court did not plainly err. When considered in context, neither the officer nor the prosecutor engaged in unambiguous
vouching. Their uses of the term “victim” to describe the
complaining witness occurred in the context of explaining
that there was physical evidence and other witnesses to corroborate the complaining witness’s account of what occurred.
And even if some of the police officer’s statements could be
construed as vouching for the complaining witness’s credibility, we decline to exercise our discretion to correct the
errors, if any, because the jury was instructed about vouching and, if defendant had objected, then the trial court could
have easily corrected any misimpression created by use of
the term “victim.” We therefore affirm.
        We briefly summarize the relevant facts. Defendant,
T, and T’s cousin lived in separate units in the same apartment complex in Portland. In March 2022, T, his cousin, and
some others were tie-dying t-shirts outside the apartment
complex. Defendant came out of his apartment, complaining
about cigarette smoke. Defendant yelled at T and the others.
Defendant asked, “Where’s your piece?” T and his cousin
interpreted the phrase as a reference to a gun. Defendant
claimed he was referring to Buddhist practices, and to a
book that T had given him, called “Being Peace.”
         Based on what he perceived as defendant’s threatening behavior, T called the police. While on the call, defendant
reached for T’s phone, and T told defendant to “[g]et away
from me.” Defendant struck T in the face with his hand. On
the recording of the call, T can be heard shouting, “He just
hit me!” and defendant shouts, “You head-butted me.” When
the police arrived, Officer McDonald noticed “some redness
along [T’s] brow.” The police took a photograph of the injury.
724                                            State v. Kehoe

McDonald spoke with defendant, who initially insisted that
the altercation was merely verbal. McDonald did not observe
that defendant had any injuries. After speaking with witnesses, she arrested defendant for assault. While transporting defendant to jail, defendant told McDonald that T had
head-butted him and that he had slapped T in self-defense.
         The state charged defendant with one count of
fourth-degree assault. At defendant’s jury trial, the state
called a number of witnesses, including T, his cousin, and
McDonald. The jury listened to the audio recording of
the 9-1-1 call and viewed photographs of T’s injury, which
showed redness or bruising around his left eye. After
the state rested, defendant and his wife took the stand.
Defendant testified that he wanted to confront T about an
earlier incident that occurred at the apartment complex,
but T ignored him. Defendant followed T around the corner
of the building, where T and the others began laughing at
defendant and “instigating” him. When T called the police,
defendant wanted T to give him the phone. Defendant and
his wife testified that T lunged at defendant and attempted
to head-butt him, and that defendant acted in self-defense.
Although defendant had told the police officer that T had
head-butted him, defendant testified at trial that T merely
attempted to do so.
         The jury found defendant guilty. On appeal, defendant argues that McDonald and the prosecutor engaged in
impermissible vouching when they repeatedly referred to T
as a “victim.” At trial, defendant did not object, and because
he did not preserve his argument, he requests plain-error
review on appeal. An error is plain when it is an error of
law, the legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute,
and the error is apparent on the record without our having
to choose among competing inferences. State v. Vanornum,

, 

 (2013). If the trial court plainly
erred, it is a matter of discretion whether we will correct it.
State v. Gornick, 

, 

 (2006).
        “Vouching refers to the expression of one’s personal opinion about the credibility of a witness.” State v.
Sperou, 

, 

 (2019). “In Oregon,
witnesses are categorically prohibited from giving vouching
Cite as 

 (2024)                                  725

testimony.” 

 Vouching is prohibited because it creates “a
risk that jurors would rely on witnesses’ opinions about the
credibility of an alleged victim to avoid their independent
obligation to determine whether the complainant’s allegations were truthful.” State v. Corkill, 

,

, rev den, 

 (2014). “Whether a witness’s statement constitutes impermissible vouching is a
legal question.” Sperou, 

.
   “When faced with an unpreserved claim of error regarding
   vouching, our first task is to assess the challenged testimony to determine whether the witness unambiguously
   vouched, may or may not have vouched (ambiguous), or
   unambiguously did not vouch. If a witness unambiguously
   vouched, it is plain error not to have stricken the testimony,
   even absent an objection.”
State v. Murphy, 

, 

 (2022).
         In Sperou, the Supreme Court drew a distinction
between use of the term “victim” by prosecutors and witnesses, explaining that prosecutors have wide latitude to
make arguments from the evidence, but that a witness’s
description of the complaining witness as a “victim” conveys an opinion that the complaining witness is telling the
truth. Id. at 130-37; see also State v. McConnell, 

, 

 (2020) (emphasizing the difference
between the prosecutor’s and a witness’s use of the term
“victim”). However, the Supreme Court also observed that
a witness’s use of the word “victim” may not raise vouching concerns “in a case where there is physical evidence
corroborating the complaining witness’s claims of victimhood,” because, in that circumstance, the description of the
complaining witness as a “victim” may be based on evidence
other than the complaining witness’s allegations. Sperou,

. To date, no case has held that it was plain
error for the trial court not to strike references to the complaining witness as a “victim” in circumstances where there
is physical evidence or other witnesses corroborating the
complaining witness’s account of what occurred.
        With that framework in mind, we consider the
challenged statements. At trial, during direct examination,
726                                               State v. Kehoe

McDonald referred to T as a “victim” six times. McDonald
testified:
     “I responded to the location, I called the complainant,
  the victim, to get more information before my arrival, and
  then responded to that location and started interviewing
  witnesses.
      “…
     “When I arrived, I saw the victim, I spoke with him,
  saw some redness on his face and inquired about what had
  occurred, and started to talk with him.
      “…
     “My understanding was that [defendant] had punched
  the victim in the face after an argument in front of their
  apartment building.
      “…
     “I placed [defendant] under arrest. I believed I had probable cause for Assault IV after interviewing the victim and
  a couple [of] witnesses.
      “…
      “As I was transferring [defendant] to jail, he stated that
  the event where he slapped the victim was in self-defense.
  He stated that he was head-butted prior to slapping the
  victim.”
(Emphases added.)
         Because vouching by a witness is categorically prohibited, McDonald’s references to T as a “victim” are troubling. When the witness is a police officer, use of the term
“victim” is even more concerning, because it may signal to
the jury that a person with expertise in identifying victims
believes the complaining witness. See State v. Avdeyev, 

, 

 (2021) (holding that the trial
court erred when it denied defendant’s pretrial motion to
prevent witnesses, including investigating officers, from
referring to complaining witnesses as “victims”). Typically,
then, defendants should object, and trial judges should be
prepared to intervene whenever a witness, but especially
when a police officer or an expert witness, refers to a complaining witness as a “victim.”
Cite as 

 (2024)                                                   727

         Nevertheless, a police officer’s description of the
complaining witness as a “victim” is less likely to mislead
the jury where there is physical evidence of a crime, and
when the officer is not relying solely on the complaining witness’s allegations. See Sperou, 

 (use of the
word “victim” may not be problematic where the testimony
is “based on evidence other than the complaining witness’s
allegations”). Here, considering the context of McDonald’s
testimony, her first four descriptions of T as a “victim” suggest that she was relying at least in part on her interviews
of other witnesses and her observation of T’s injury. And
her fifth and sixth uses of the term “victim” occurred in the
context of describing how defendant told her that he acted
in self-defense. Furthermore, in deciding whether a crime
occurred, the jury listened to an audio recording of the
altercation, which tended to corroborate the complaining
witness’s account of what occurred. Thus, unlike in Avdeyev,

, where there was no physical evidence to
corroborate the charged crimes, here there was both physical evidence and other witnesses to corroborate the complaining witness’s account of what occurred.
         Based on that context, we conclude that the police
officer may or may not have vouched for the complaining
witness’s credibility, but her testimony did not consist of
unambiguous vouching. Accordingly, the trial court did
not plainly err in failing to sue sponte strike McDonald’s
references to the complaining witness as a victim. See
Murphy, 

 (“[I]f a witness’s testimony was
ambiguous—such that the witness may or may not have been
vouching—there is no plain error in not having stricken the
testimony sua sponte, in part because the lack of objection
prevented clarification of the testimony.”).1
     1
       Admittedly, the line between unambiguous vouching and ambiguous vouching
is a fine one. In a post-conviction case, Curry v. Highberger, 

, 

, rev den, 

 (2023), we addressed facts similar to those at issue here,
albeit in a different procedural posture. As explained in the concurring opinion, “two
adult men had a physical altercation, and the one charged with a crime claimed that
he had acted in self-defense. In that context, referring to the complainant as ‘the
victim’ necessarily cast him as the victim of a crime committed by [the] defendant,
counter to [the] defendant’s theory that no crime occurred ….” Id. at 272 (Aoyagi,
J., concurring). But here, there was also an audio recording of the 9-1-1 call, which
tended to corroborate the complaining witness’s version of events. When that evidence is considered alongside the fact that only the complaining witness was injured,
728                                                           State v. Kehoe

         Next, we consider the prosecutor’s statements.
During the state’s closing argument, the prosecutor referred
to T as a “victim” five times. The prosecutor stated:
        “So, what are the allegations in this case? That the
    [d]efendant … caused physical injury to the victim, [T].
        “…
       “On March 27th, 2022, [d]efendant … saw the victim, [T], walking outside, decided he was going to confront
    him, confront him about an incident that happened a week
    earlier.
        “…
        “[Defendant is] getting furious, he’s upset, right? First
    he’s ignored, and now he’s laughed at. He will not let this
    stand, he’s furious. So he starts talking—turns his aggression to the victim, [T].
        “…
       “But throughout that phone call you hear for about the
    next 15, 20 seconds, [T] consistently saying, ‘Step away
    from me. I’m trying to separate myself like the officer says.’
    You can hear in the background the defendant … also
    talking. Right? All of a sudden you hear the victim say,
    ‘He’s coming at me again. He’s coming at me again.’
        “…
        “So, again, the elements of the case. On March 27th,
    2022, [d]efendant … caused physical injury to the victim,
    [T], right?”
(Emphases added).
          The prosecutor’s use of the term “victim” is less
troubling in this instance than the police officer’s use of the
term. “ ‘[I]t is permissible for a prosecutor to argue that the
jury should infer that a witness is credible based on the evidence in the record, so long as the prosecutor does not vouch
for the witness by interjecting his or her personal opinion of
the witness’s credibility.’ ” Behrle v. Taylor, 

,

and the information provided by other witnesses, we conclude that McDonald may or
may not have vouched for the complaining witness’s credibility, but that any vouching was not unambiguous. In any event, as we explain below, even if there was plain
error, we would not exercise our discretion to correct the error.
Cite as 

 (2024)                             729

137, 

 (2020), rev den, 

 (2021) (quoting Heroff v. Coursey, 

, 

(2016), rev den, 

 (2017)). Prosecutors cross the
line from acceptable arguments about witness credibility to
impermissible vouching when their arguments are “in the
nature of ‘take my word for it,’ not ‘let me show you.’ ” Davis
v. Cain, 

, 

 (2020). In Sperou,
the Supreme Court pointed out that if a prosecutor were to
argue that “ ‘we will prove that [the] defendant committed
this crime and that [the witness] was his victim,’ ” then that
statement would be a fair comment on the evidence. 

. Here, the prosecutor’s first and fifth uses of the
term “victim” fall neatly into that category because, in those
instances, the prosecutor was describing the allegations or
the elements of the charge against defendant.
         The prosecutor’s second, third, and fourth use of the
term “victim” did not consist of vouching because, in those
instances, the prosecutor referred to and relied on the evidence in the record to try to persuade the jury regarding the
state’s view of the evidence. Defendant himself testified that
he sought to confront T about a prior incident at the apartment complex and that he became more agitated when T
and his associates began laughing at him. The audio recording of T’s telephone call to the police supported T’s account
of what occurred. Thus, when describing the complaining
witness as a “victim,” the prosecutor was not asking the jury
to take the prosecutor’s word for it; instead, the prosecutor’s descriptions relied on evidence in the record. We conclude that the prosecutor did not engage in vouching, and
the trial court did not plainly err in failing to strike those
parts of the prosecutor’s closing argument. See McConnell,

 (determining that the trial court did
not err in denying a pretrial motion to prohibit the prosecutor’s use of the word “victim” because the motion failed to
appreciate the considerations distinguishing a prosecutor’s
legitimate use of the term from uses that are improper).
         In the context of vouching testimony, when a case
boils down to a credibility contest, use of the term “victim,”
and especially repeated use of the term, is considered prejudicial. Sperou, 

. This case, however, was not a
730                                            State v. Kehoe

pure credibility contest. Instead, there was testimony from
a witness who observed the incident, and the jury observed
photographs of the injury and listened to an audio recording
of the altercation. In addition, the jury was instructed on
vouching, and we presume that jurors follow their instructions absent an overwhelming probability that they would
have been unable to do so. State v. Shinnick, 

, 848-49, 

 (2017). As a result, even if we were
to conclude that the trial court erred in failing to strike all
uses of the term “victim,” and that the error was harmful, in
this context it was not a grave error because given the jury
instruction on vouching, the error would have had a very low
likelihood of affecting the verdict. See State v. Horton, 

, 

 (2023) (declining to exercise
discretion to correct a plain error where the likelihood that
the verdict would have been different was extremely low).
For those reasons, the ends of justice would not be served
by reversing defendant’s conviction based on use of the term
“victim” to describe the complaining witness.
        Affirmed.