Lay opinion testimony; Plain error review; People v. Carines; People v. Randolph; People v. Manwell (Unpub.); People v. Thorpe; People v. Harbison; MRE 702; Bolstering the victim’s credibility; Children’s Protective Services (CPS)

On remand from the Supreme Court to reconsider its holdings in parts III and IV of Manwell as to the testimonies of CPS worker R and Detective N in light of the consolidated cases of Thorpe and Harbison, the court again affirmed. Defendant was convicted of sexually abusing his daughter, D. The court found that the challenged trial testimony of both R and N was “admissible lay opinion testimony under MRE 701, that the testimony did not constitute improper vouching for [D’s] credibility, and that defendant failed to establish plain error affecting his substantial rights.” The court held that Thorpe and Harbison did not affect the analysis in Part III of the court’s original opinion. Part IV of the court’s opinion addressed defendant’s argument that R and N improperly bolstered D’s credibility. The court previously determined that the testimony that the victim “appeared to be ashamed and confused was not a pronouncement on her credibility.” Nothing in Thorpe or Harbison altered this conclusion. Thus, defendant failed to establish plain error affecting his substantial rights.