Opinion ID: 1124723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Thirteenth Did the court err in admitting evidence of Michael's prior consistent statements?

Text: No. During cross-examination, Michael admitted robbing a market in Seattle on February 13, 1960, following the Skyway Motel conversation. At the time of trial, he was facing a charge of armed robbery. James Makos, a witness for Franklin, testified that in a conversation at the Hitching Post with Connors, Monson and himself, Michael said that he had a deal made with the Seattle Police Department; that he had his self to worry about now, pertaining to this Ralph's robbery; that his testimony was false; and that he was willing to repudiate it. In rebuttal and over objection, Captain Rouse testified that at 9:40 p.m. on May 13, 1959, Michael informed him over the telephone as follows: He had been with his wife, Rosoto and Vlahovich at the Roma Cafe; Rosoto and Vlahovich told him they had brought about the death of Mr. Simpson, but they gave him no details; and Rosoto and Vlahovich laughed and bragged about Mrs. Simpson's appearance without her extremities. Rouse's testimony was admitted for the limited purpose of rehabilitating Michael by showing that he made statements consistent with his testimony at the trial prior to any time or any indication of any pressure being put on the witness to make those statements at the time. Rosoto contends that the court erred in permitting Rouse to rehabilitate Michael, because Michael's statements were made at a time when he was controlled by motives of interest and bias, and the statements were inconsistent with his testimony at the trial. [30] It is settled that when the testimony of a witness has been assailed as being of recent fabrication, evidence of his statements or conduct prior to the claimed fabrication consistent with his testimony at the trial may be admitted under an exception to the hearsay rule, not to prove the facts of the case but to show that the testimony of the witness was not a fabrication and he was not controlled by motives of interest. ( People v. Walsh, 47 Cal.2d 36, 41 [2] [301 P.2d 247].)