Opinion ID: 2630372
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Issue III Hearsay statements of Jacob Martinez and Michael Seiser

Text: [¶ 26] Proffit next claims the district court erred when it admitted the hearsay testimony of two law enforcement officers  Lieutenant Seeman and Investigator Duane Peyrot of the Campbell County Sheriff's Department  who recounted what two other witnesses in the case, Jacob Martinez and Michael Seiser, told them about Forquer's murder. He insists the district court incorrectly determined that the out-of-court statements of Martinez and Seiser were admissible as prior consistent statements under W.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B) because the statements were made after the motive to fabricate their stories arose. W.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B) states: (d) Statements which are not hearsay.  A statement is not hearsay if: (1) Prior Statement by Witness.  The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is ... (B) consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.... [¶ 27] Rule 801(d)(1)(B) does not contain a temporal requirement for admissibility of a prior consistent statement. That is, the rule permits the admission of a prior consistent statement regardless of whether it was made before or after the alleged improper influence or motive to fabricate arose. Dike v. State, 990 P.2d 1012, 1024 (Wyo. 1999). We have held that a prior consistent statement may be used as substantive evidence if the alleged improper motive or influence arose after the statement was made. Id.; see also Montoya v. State, 822 P.2d 363, 367 (Wyo.1991). However, if the prior consistent statement does not precede the alleged improper influence or motive, the statement may only be used for rehabilitative purposes. Dike, 990 P.2d at 1024. When a prior consistent statement is admissible only for rehabilitative purposes, a limiting instruction must be given, but only if requested. Id. [¶ 28] Rule 801(d)(1)(B) allows for the use of a prior consistent statement to rehabilitate a witness whose credibility has been impeached. By its plain language, four requirements must be satisfied before a prior consistent statement may be properly admitted into evidence: (1) The declarant testifies at trial; (2) the declarant is subject to cross-examination concerning the prior statement; (3) the prior statement is consistent with the declarant's trial testimony; and (4) the prior statement is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. Martin v. State, 2007 WY 76, ¶ 26, 157 P.3d 923, 929 (Wyo.2007). We have held that the fourth requirement does not mandate a specific allegation during cross-examination; rather, it may be made by implication or innuendo, and it may be found in the thrust of the defense theory and the testimony presented at trial. Id.; see also Lancaster v. State, 2002 WY 45, ¶ 18, 43 P.3d 80, 89 (Wyo.2002); Alicea v. State, 13 P.3d 693, 698-99 (Wyo.2000); Humphrey v. State, 962 P.2d 866, 872 (Wyo.1998). [¶ 29] In this case, Proffit defended on the theory that both Martinez and Seiser had lied from the outset and falsely implicated him in Forquer's murder to garner leniency from the State. From opening statements to closing argument, and at every opportunity in between, Proffit vigorously attacked the men's credibility and attempted to discredit every aspect of their account of the events surrounding Forquer's death. Proffit's persistent attack on Martinez and Seiser opened the door for the State's use of their prior statements for rehabilitative purposes. Without belaboring the testimony, Lieutenant Seeman and Investigator Peyrot related what Martinez and Seiser had reported to them, and the statements were consistent with the men's trial testimony. Accordingly, the prior statements of Martinez and Seiser were properly admitted as nonhearsay under W.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B). [¶ 30] Proffit relies heavily on Wilde v. State, 2003 WY 93, 74 P.3d 699 (Wyo.2003), claiming his case is factually similar and, therefore, we should likewise find reversible error. We disagree. Wilde involved the statements of a minor victim. In that case, Wilde attacked the competency and reliability of the victim. The State, in an attempt to bolster the victim's testimony, presented six witnesses  the mother, sister, police officer, physician, nurse and forensic interviewer  to whom the victim had told her story. Each of these witnesses then repeated the victim's story without much variation. It was under these specific circumstances  where six people repeated the statements to the jury  that this Court found the trial court abused its discretion, amounting to reversible error. Id., ¶ 14, 74 P.3d at 707-08. The facts in Wilde are clearly distinguishable from this case. Here, the same concerns are not present. [¶ 31] Proffit also relies on Dike v. State, 990 P.2d 1012 (Wyo.1999), to support his argument that reversible error occurred. Proffit seems to be arguing that, because the statements were post-motive, the district court had a legal duty under Dike to sua sponte give a limiting instruction ensuring the jury considered the statements for the sole purpose of evaluating the credibility of Martinez and Seiser. Dike, however, imposed no such duty on the district court. Rather, Dike reiterated that a trial court's obligation to give a limiting instruction was predicated on a request by the defendant. In Dike, we declined to find reversible error in the trial court's failure to give a limiting instruction for the reason the defendant had not requested that one be given. Id. at 1024. In this case, Proffit did not ask for a limiting instruction. Accordingly, the district court was not legally obligated to give one, and no error can be premised on its failure to do so.