Opinion ID: 2633362
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Admission of Victim's Prior Consistent Statements

Text: [¶ 21] Schmidt embarks on this argument by stating that defense counsel did not in any way imply that [the victim] was fabricating the incident in his opening statement. This is so patently incorrect that it renders a detailed further discussion virtually unnecessary. As noted above in our recitation of the facts, we deem it unmistakable that defense counsel indicated in opening statement that the defense would show the incident, as described by the victim, did not take place (... so at no time during this occasion is there an opportunity, I believe, for the things that are alleged to have occurred to have occurred.). Moreover, in testimony, the defense offered evidence that the victim may have had an improper motive (the break up of the romance between the victim and Schmidt's son). The testimony of Schmidt's family was to the effect that there was no possibility that the victim was ever alone with Schmidt on the date alleged in the information. Thus, we quite readily conclude that the admission of the victim's prior consistent statements was well within the letter of W.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B). Also see Alicea v. State, 13 P.3d 693, 698-99 (Wyo.2000). In addition, Schmidt asked for no limiting instruction concerning the use of prior consistent statements as substantive evidence. Id. at 699.