In State v. Rogers (May 6, 1994), Erie App. No. E-93-20, 1994 Ohio App, the officer stated during the interview that the child sounded very believable, that he could see no reason for her to fabricate the allegations, and that he believed there was a 100% chance that she was telling the truth. On review, the appellate court held that it was impermissible for a police officer to be declared an expert on the subject of child abuse and for the state then to play a videotape of the officer's interview of the defendant, during which the officer expressed his opinion of the veracity of the child-victim. The appellate court reasoned: "A party cannot circumvent the holding in Boston by calling a witness to the stand, having him declared an expert, and then playing of videotape of that witness expressing his belief, during an interrogation of the accused, that the child declarant is truthful. In addition, by allowing the officer to testify through the videotape as to his belief in the child's veracity, the officer was assessing the credibility of the child, who testified at the trial below. Such testimony is impermissible as it is the duty of the trier of fact to assess the credibility of witnesses, not the duty of any individual witness."