Opinion ID: 2448167
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Foster Parent.

Text: Appellants maintain that the testimony of the foster parent, Mr. Bright, constituted inadmissible hearsay, was inflammatory, and served to unfairly bolster R.S.'s testimony. On direct examination, Mr. Bright was permitted to testify concerning the behavior and conduct of R.S. after his removal from appellants' home. He testified that R.S. was terrified of bathrooms, hesitant about physical contact, spoke of games in the shower, and had a habit of crawling upon the sink when taken into the bathroom. Appellants claim that Bright's behavior and conduct testimony merely bolstered R.S.'s testimony and that it constitutes nonverbal hearsay as it was offered to prove that R.S. was forced to engage in various forms of sexual conduct with appellants and others. In overruling the objection to the testimony, the trial court stated that throughout cross examination appellants had attempted to show that R.S.'s older brother (C.S.) had planted the vivid sexual contact allegations in the child's mind and that third parties who had conferred with him had influenced his terminology and the content of the allegations. The Court held that the Bright testimony was offered to discredit this defense theory and to show that R.S. behaved in a manner consistent with abuse prior to the time the allegations were made. The testimony in question did not constitute nonverbal hearsay or any hearsay. The purpose of the testimony was to dispel the defense theory that the sexual contact allegations were manufactured by the older brother and the social workers. Our law is that once a witness's credibility has been attacked by charges of recent fabrication or improper influence, rebuttal evidence may be introduced to show that the witness made a prior consistent statement at a time when there was no improper influence or motive to fabricate. Eubank v. Commonwealth, 210 Ky. 150, 275 S.W. 630 (1925). This rule is applicable in the instant case. On cross examination, appellants pursued a theory that the allegations had been manufactured in the victim's mind by third parties. This theory was promoted by an attack on R.S.'s credibility and by accusations that he fabricated his stories. Appellants' cross examination provided ample grounds for the admission of Bright's testimony. Reed v. Commonwealth, Ky., 738 S.W.2d 818 (1987).