Opinion ID: 2104647
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the government's rehabilitation of a key witness

Text: Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it allowed the government to rehabilitate the testimony of Anthony Humes. Humes testified on direct examination that appellant had responded Yeah to Allen's query, Do you want it? Appellant's trial counsel impeached this testimony with that of Officer Shephard, who testified that, while he was transporting Humes to the show-up identification, Humes had said Allen had expressed a desire for the decedent's radio, but that Humes had not mentioned appellant's saying anything at all about the radio. [10] The trial court allowed the government, in rebuttal, to rehabilitate Humes by introducing Humes' prior consistent statement to Lieutenant Witzig when Witzig had interviewed him at the police station three hours after the murder. Witzig testified that during this interview Humes had told the same story he related at trial: that in response to Allen's query appellant had replied Yeah, he wanted the radio. Immediately after Witzig testified, the trial court cautioned the jury on the proper use of prior consistent statements. Ordinarily, prior out-of-court statements consistent with a witness's trial testimony are inadmissible in a criminal prosecution on the theory that repetition does not imply veracity. Williams v. United States, 483 A.2d 292, 296 (D.C.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 906, 106 S.Ct. 275, 88 L.Ed.2d 236 (1985). An exception to this rule permits the introduction of a prior consistent statement to rehabilitate a witness whose credibility has been undermined by a specific suggestion of fabrication or of a motive to lie at trial. Id. (citing Rease v. United States, 403 A.2d 322, 328 n. 7 (D.C. 1979)). When used for a rehabilitative purpose, a prior consistent statement must be directed only at the particular impeachment that occurred and must support the particular testimony that has been impeached. Id. (citing Musgrove v. United States, 441 A.2d 980, 985 (D.C.1982)). Finally, the statement must have been made at a time when, considering all the circumstances, the witness did not have a motive to fabricate. See Reed v. United States, 452 A.2d 1173, 1180-81 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 839, 104 S.Ct. 132, 78 L.Ed.2d 127 (1983). Appellant argues that because Humes' own role in the events leading up to the murder did not differ materially from that of appellant, and because Humes had been detained several times that morning by police investigating the murder, Humesin order to keep the focus of police suspicion off himselfhad a motive to fabricate at the time he made the inconsistent statement to Officer Shephard in the back of the squad car, see supra note 10, and thereafter through the time of the consistent statement to Lieutenant Witzig at the police station. Appellant premises this argument on Humes' testimony on cross-examination that he was still afraid of being implicated in the murder even at the time of trial. The trial court has broad discretion with respect to the admission or exclusion of prior consistent statements. District of Columbia v. Bethel, 567 A.2d 1331, 1336 (D.C.1990) (citing United States v. Hamilton, 689 F.2d 1262, 1273 (6th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1117, 103 S.Ct. 753, 754, 74 L.Ed.2d 971 (1983)). Here, the trial court, considering all the circumstances, determined that any motive Humes might have had to lie would have dissipated by the time he spoke with Lieutenant Witzig. The court therefore admitted the prior consistent statement. We find no abuse of discretion. Much of Humes' testimony was favorable to appellant, a fact which tends to undermine appellant's suggestion that Humes had a motive to fabricate or to embellish appellant's involvement in order to keep the focus of suspicion away from himself. [11] Furthermore, Humeswho was not under arrestmade the prior consistent statement after he had learned that appellant and Allen were under arrest and after he had identified them at a showup. This case, therefore, is distinguishable from Williams, where we concluded that there had been a motive to fabricate because the prior statements were made to law enforcement officials at a time when the witnesses were under arrest and knew they could be tried for first-degree murder. Williams, 483 A.2d at 296. While the trial court would not have abused its discretion had it declined to admit Humes' prior consistent statement, we cannot say as a matter of law that on this record the court abused its discretion in admitting it.