Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts

expansive view of claims that testimony constitutes an opinion of guilt."
Demery, 144 Wn,2d at 760 (quoting City ofSeattle v. Heatley, 70 Wn.
App. 573, 579, 854 P.2d 658 (1993)).
In determining whether such statements are impermissible
opinion testimony, the court will consider the circumstances of the case,
including the following factors: '(1) the' type of witness involved', (2)
the specific nature of the testimony,' (3) the ' nature of the charges,' (4)
the type of defense,' and (5) the ' other evidence before the trier of fact."
Kirkman, 159 Wn. App. at 928 (quoting Demery, 144 Wn.2d at 759, 30
P.3d 1278 (quoting State v. Heatley, 70 Wn. App, 573, 579, 854 P.2d 658
1993))),
In the present case, the defendant argues that portions of Thomas's
testimony constituted improper opinion testimony, which "vouched for the
credibility of the complainant," C.D. Brief of Appellant, p. I 1 -17. The
record, however, demonstrates that at no point did Thomas so much as
comment on, much less vouch for, the credibility of C.D. See RP 565-91.
Thomas testified that there are forensic interviewing guidelines,
and that she always employs the "funnel method" of interviewing children
by which
the forensic interview starts off with very open-ended
questions, you know, like a funnel, and as a child gives
information, then the question —the one question becomes
more direct and more specific based on the information that
has been received. And, therefore, the child leads the
interview and the interviewer does not lead the interview,
16 - optest-prosmiscsptrialmcdaniel doc