Vorse v. Sarasy

In Vorse v. Sarasy (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 998, the Court reversed a judgment because the trial court struck a witness's testimony on the basis that the witness was untruthful. ( Id. at p. 1007.) "The court went on to evaluate the testimony's probative value and, in doing so, improperly invaded the jury's role as fact finder. The court apparently concluded Schmidt's testimony was of limited probative value because the court did not believe it. Such an analysis overlooks the essential differences between the roles of judge and jury. It is axiomatic that questions of credibility are exclusively within the province of the jury. ( 312, subd. (b); see also Pen. Code, 1127.) The court may not set itself up as a gatekeeper excluding otherwise competent and relevant evidence simply because the court finds it unbelievable." ( Id. at p. 1009.) " 'Except in these rare instance of demonstrable falsity, doubts about the credibility of the in-court witness should be left for the jury's resolution.' " ( Id. at p. 1011.)