distinguishing Liggett because the prosecution did not ask "were they lying?" but instead asked questions concerning the detectives' investigative decisions. The majority reads Liggett too narrowly. The concerns underlying Liggett do not disappear because testimony is offered for the limited purpose of explaining the context of a detective's "interrogation tactics and investigative decisions." Nor am I persuaded that the prosecution's questions, rather than a witness's responses, are the focal point of the inquiry. Liggett offers no principled basis on which to distinguish "were they lying" questions from "they were lying" statements-both are "categorically improper." See id. at 7322. In either case, the jury learns a witness's opinion about the veracity of another witness on 89) (<HOLDING>). Further, CRE 608 does not permit testimony
holding harmless the improper admission of a social workers hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse where the credibility of the childs testimony was supported by other witnesses holding that statement within expert report is not a judicial admission but is instead an admission by party holding that cre 608a prohibited admission of a pediatricians statement that a childs medical history was very believable holding that review of medical history during an examination assisted doctors medical conclusions holding that defendant who introduced hearsay statement waived objection to admission of another part of same statement