Opinion ID: 2219373
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hearsay TestimonyPrior Consistent Testimony.

Text: The criminal charges against Capper were filed in March of 1993. On his motion the court ordered depositions of K.V. and N.S. be permitted. The depositions were taken on July 9. Trial commenced on February 1, 1994 and guilty verdicts were returned the following day. At trial Capper's counsel conducted extensive cross-examination of K.V. and N.S. challenging their credibility. He also introduced portions of the pretrial depositions. In the depositions K.V. denied Capper touched her with his hands or with his penis and N.S. denied Capper had at any time tried to touch her breast or to rub her in the vagina area. Capper's counsel implied the children changed their story after he had deposed them. Later during the trial, the court allowed Griffin to testify as to statements made by N.S. to him prior to January 25, 1993 over Capper's objection that the statements would be hearsay. Griffin testified that when he first discussed the allegations with N.S. she said Capper had touched her in the breast area and vagina area while she was at Capper's lake cabin. Griffin also testified he had previously discussed with K.V. the allegations. When asked if what she told him was consistent with what Capper did, he said it was. Capper's objection to the question was that it called for hearsay and that the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value. Under Iowa law a statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. Iowa R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(B); State v. Brotherton, 384 N.W.2d 375, 380 (Iowa 1986). The application of this evidentiary rule has been modified by our decision, State v. Johnson, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 1995), filed this same date. Because the prior consistent statements involved in this case were made prior to the impeaching deposition statements made in July of 1993, the adoption of the bright-line rule in Johnson does not prevent the court from allowing the prior statements. It was not error to allow testimony as to N.S.'s prior consistent statements. As to prior statements of K.V., the question did not ask what the child had stated but inquired as to whether her statements were consistent with what Capper did. No objection was made as to the form of the question. The court did not err in overruling Capper's objection.