Opinion ID: 2585418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: prior consistent statements of the victim

Text: Whitesell argues that the trial court impermissibly allowed several witnesses to testify regarding statements that Julie made, as they should have been excluded as hearsay and an improper attempt to bolster Julie's testimony by prior consistent statements. This issue is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard of review. State v. Cooper, 252 Kan. 340, 348, 845 P.2d 631 (1993). Prior to trial, Whitesell filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude hearsay evidence, arguing that Julie's prior consistent statements should be excluded as both hearsay and as improper attempts to bolster her credibility. Whitesell argued that if you put the police on first, the jury gets to hear over and over what Julie has said ... before I get to cross-examine Julie Whitesell one bit. The trial court overruled the motion. At trial, Whitesell again objected when several witnesses took the stand and testified regarding statements Julie had made. Each of the witnesses testified before Julie took the stand. The trial court overruled the objections. Whitesell argues that the trial court erred in allowing the witnesses to testify regarding hearsay statements made by Julie through numerous law enforcement witnesses as well as friends and family members, all before Julie herself testified. Whitesell's key argument is that Julie's testimony was unreliable as it was either false, exaggerated, and/or paranoid, and that his case was prejudiced as he was not able to cross-examine the declarant until after the 20 witnesses testified as to statements that Julie made to them. Whitesell correctly notes that prior statements of a witness, consistent with his testimony at trial, are not admissible in corroboration of his testimony unless the witness has been impeached and then only for the purpose of rehabilitating him. State v. Fouts, 169 Kan. 686, 696, 221 P.2d 841 (1950). The statements admitted by the trial court were not used to unfairly corroborate Julie's statements but were used to show the subjective substantial emotional distress element of the stalking charge. K.S.A. 21-3438(d)(1). The statements were not offered to bolster Julie's credibility because they were not offered to assert the truth of the matter asserted but to give the jury an idea as to Julie's state of mind and her emotional reaction to Whitesell's actions towards her. Furthermore, the statements were not hearsay because Julie was present at the hearing and available for cross-examination and the statements would have been admissible if made by her while testifying as a witness. State v. Rice, 261 Kan. 567, 580-81, 932 P.2d 981 (1997). The fact that a large number of witnesses testified on the stand is also irrelevant, as most of the testimony that is complained of was from officers investigating various calls made to Julie's house. The testimony was voluminous because the incidents were numerous. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing officers and others to testify regarding Julie's state of mind and in doing so admitting several admissible hearsay statements made by Julie.