Opinion ID: 2352015
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements

Text: The defendant's final argument on appeal is that the trial justice erred by admitting the testimony of Brother Flaxington (Flaxington), which included out-of-court statements made by Amy during counseling. [5] The defendant contends that the statements should have been excluded as hearsay under Rule 802 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. The state argues that the statements were not hearsay but prior consistent statements admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B). We agree with the state. Rule 801(d)(1)(B) provides that a statement is not hearsay if it is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. However, a proponent must show that the prior consistent statement was made prior to the existence of circumstances relied upon to discredit the credibility of the witness's testimony. State v. Damiano, 587 A.2d 396, 401 (R.I.1991); see also Tome v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 696, 130 L.Ed.2d 574 (1995); State v. Haslam, 663 A.2d 902 (R.I.1995). Prior consistent statements introduced merely to bolster the credibility of the declarant's in-court testimony are prohibited. Damiano, 587 A.2d at 401. In the instant case, defense counsel's questions implied that Amy's accusations against defendant were motivated by (1) her desire to see her mother remain in Rhode Island, (2) her wish that she not live with her biological father, (3) her hope that her mother would divorce defendant and marry another who spoke better English and made more money, and (4) her intention to bring a civil suit against defendant in order to receive compensation from the Violent Crimes Indemnity Fund (indemnity fund). Each of the motives charged by the defendant, except the last, predate Amy's statements to Flaxington rendering them ineffective in qualifying the statements as admissible. We are persuaded that the last charge, on the other hand, invokes a motive that would have postdated Amy's statements to Flaxington. Amy's statements to Flaxington indicated that she confided in him because she wished to receive help. Flaxington informed Amy that her biological father had to be notified. Subsequently, Amy's father put her into counseling with Dr. Fusaro. The record reflects that Dr. Fusaro contacted the Department of Social Services and triggered the involvement of law enforcement officials. Amy denied any intention to seek compensation from the defendant or the indemnity fund, and no evidence exists to the contrary. We are of the opinion that the trial justice satisfied himself that Amy's statements to Flaxington rebutted the defendant's charge and predated any purported motive to seek compensation. Consequently the trial justice's ruling was correct. For the reasons stated, the defendant's appeal is denied and dismissed. The judgment of conviction is affirmed, and the papers of the case are remanded to the Superior Court.