Opinion ID: 2625337
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Jury Inquiry About Limited Admissibility of Evidence

Text: On the third day of deliberations, the jury asked the trial court if it was possible to obtain a list of evidence that was presented for limited purpose? After conferring with counsel for the parties, the court responded: Evidence received for a limited purpose: 1. Portions of the testimony of: (a) Tanis Palmer (b) Debbie Nordman (c) Darlene Bryant (d) Jake Wilhelmi (e) Lisa Moody. 2. Exhibits 17 and 17A. Defendant contends the trial court should have also told the jury that the testimony of Mitchell and Glade, admitted under the prior consistent statements exception to the hearsay rule, was admitted for the limited purpose of evaluating Elander's credibility. Defendant's argument assumes that prior consistent statements are admissible only to support the credibility of a witness and not for the truth of the matter stated. Such statements, however, are admissible for both purposes. (Cal. Law Revision Com. com., 29B West's Ann. Evid.Code (1995 ed.) foll. § 1236, p. 239.)