Sheriff's Dep't, 196 P.3d 892, 899 (Colo.2008). Davis, through contemporaneous admissibility objections at trial, properly preserved each portion of testimony for review. Therefore, if we find an abuse of discretion, then we review for harmless error and consider whether any error, in light of the entire record of the trial, substantially influenced the verdict or impaired the fairness of the trial. People v. Stewart, 55 P.3d 107, 124 (Colo.2002). With this standard in mind, we turn to the applicable law. III The Admissibility of Comments on Witness Credibility 114 Evidentiary rules limit the admission of character evidence in most situations. Under CRE 404(a), "[elvidence of a person's character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in (<HOLDING>); People v. Cook, 197 P.3d 269, 276
holding that statements made to a social worker that may have bearing on a childs health safety and welfare are not privileged and are subject to compulsory disclosure under the harmful acts exception to social worker privilege holding that trial court did not commit error when it allowed state to reopen evidence to establish venue holding the record does not show that the statement to the social worker was for medical treatment because the social worker testified that he questioned the child to determine whether he needed to notify child protective services of a case of suspected child abuse holding that the trial court erred when it allowed an investigating officer to expressly state on multiple occasions that victims were credible in their accusations holding that the trial court erred when it allowed a social worker to state that a victim was telling the truth when describing various incidents of abuse