Document: 513 U.S. 150115 S.Ct. 696130 L.Ed.2d 574 Matthew Wayne TOME, Petitionerv.UNITED STATES. No. 93-6892. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Oct. 5, 1994. Decided Jan. 10, 1995. Syllabus * Petitioner Tome was charged with sexually abusing his daughter A.T. when she four years old. The Government theorized that he committed assault while in custody and crime disclosed spending vacation time her mother. defense countered allegations were concocted so would not be returned to father, who had primary physical custody. testified at trial, and, order rebut implicit charge testimony motivated by a desire live mother, presented six witnesses recounted out-of-court statements made about alleged living District admitted under, inter alia, Federal Rule Evidence 801(d)(1)(B), which provides prior witness are hearsay if they consistent witness' offered against "recent fabrication or improper influence motive." convicted, Appeals affirmed, adopting Government's argument A.T.'s admissible even though been after motive fabricate arose. Reasoning premotive requirement is function relevancy, rules, court balanced lie probative value one determined erred admitting statements. Held: judgment reversed, case remanded. 3 F.3d 342 (CA 10 1993) reversed Justice KENNEDY delivered opinion Court, except as Part II-B, concluding: 1 1. 801(d)(1)(B) permits introduction declarant's recent only those before fabrication, influence, motive, conditions established here. Pp. __, __. 2 (a) embodies prevailing common-law rule existence for more than century Rules adopted: A statement introduced came into being but inadmissible afterwards. Rule's language speaks rebutting charges exclusion other forms impeachment, it bears close similarity used many cases. (b) inconsistent Rules' liberal approach relevancy misconceives design provisions. Hearsay evidence often relevant. But relevance sole criterion admissibility, difficult account general proscription traditional analysis Rules, most part, reflect. reliance on academic commentators critical excluding also misplaced. Advisory Committee rejected balancing such proposed adopted. here creates precise dangers sought avoid: It involves considerable judicial discretion, reduces predictability, enhances difficulties trial preparation because parties will have difficulty knowing advance whether particular admitted. 4 (c) instant illustrates some important considerations supporting foregoing interpretation. Permitting substantive every in-court results from shift trial's whole emphasis out-of-court, rather in-court, may ascertain arose However, majority courts performing this task over century, has no adhere today unable make determination. 5 2. admissibility under 803(24) any evidentiary principle left decide first instance. P. 16. 6 KENNEDY, J., announced respect Parts I, II-A, II-C, III, STEVENS, SCALIA, SOUTER, GINSBURG, JJ., joined, an joined. filed concurring part judgment. BREYER, dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR THOMAS, 7 Joseph W. Gandert, Albuquerque, NM, petitioner. 8 Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, DC, respondent. 9 IIB. Various federal Courts divided question case. At issue interpretation provision bearing upon statements, declarant testifies witness, Fed.Rule Evid. 801(d)(1)(B). arose, Rule. 11 one-count indictment felony sexual abuse child, own daughter, aged crime. having arisen Navajo Indian Reservation, tried jury New Mexico, where found guilty violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(c), 2245(2)(A) (B). 12 child's mother divorced 1988. tribal awarded joint A.T., both parents, In 1989 unsuccessful petitioning summer 1990. Neither parent attended further hearing August On 27, 1990, contacted Colorado authorities 13 prosecution's theory assaults child argued father. then half old, witness. For direct consisted one- two-word answers series leading questions. Cross-examination took place two days. asked 348 day answered all questions posed general, background subjects. 14 next there testimony, prosecutor met When cross-examination resumed, questioned conversations reluctant discuss them. Defense counsel began questioning abuse, appears points answer. As judge noted, however, imprecise unclear. expressed concerns examination observing lapses much 40-55 seconds between second seemed losing concentration. stated, "We very situation here." 15 After testified, produced total seven describing assaults: babysitter recited 22, did want return father "gets drunk thinks I'm wife"; related details given stood outside room listened herself; what heard tell babysitter; social worker told 29, 1990 assaults; three pediatricians, Drs. Kuper, Reich Spiegel, them how touched Tome. All Dr. Spiegel implicated (The physicians their clinical examinations indicated subjected vaginal penetrations. That here.) 16 witnesses, counsel's objection, accepting rebutted 22d 803(24), Kuper (and apparently Reich) 803(4) (statements purposes medical diagnosis). record does indicate ruled latter ground. No objection Spiegel's testimony. Following convicted sentenced imprisonment. 17 appeal, Tenth Circuit reasoned "the pre-motive rules" "function relevance, clearly too broad . simply true individual always do so." 342, 350 1993). "Rather, accurately evaluating strength lie, circumstances made, demonstrated propensity lie." Ibid. recognized Circuits require Rule, must see, e.g., v. Guevara, 598 F.2d 1094, 1100 (CA7 1979); Quinto, 582 224, 234 (CA2 1978), cited Ninth Circuit's decision Miller, 874 1255, 1272 (CA9 1989), support its approach. Applying test babysitter, although might "some we believe particularly strong one." F.3d, 351. held district abused discretion analyze quality nor reach evidence. We granted certiorari, 510 ----, 114 1048, 127 370 (1994), now reverse. II 19 adoption being, Story explained: "[W]here assailed date repel imputation, proof antecedent declaration party admitted." Ellicott Pearl, 35 (10 Pet.) 412, 439, L.Ed. 475 (1836) (emphasis supplied). See People Singer, 300 N.Y. 120, 124-125, 89 N.E.2d 710, 712 (1949). 20 McCormick Wigmore stated categorical manner: "[T]he applicable refute unless source bias, interest, incapacity originated." E. Cleary, § 49, p. 105 (2d ed. 1972) (hereafter McCormick). J. Wigmore, 1128, 268 (J. Chadbourn rev. Wigmore) ("A statement, fact said bias effectively explain away force impeaching evidence" original))." temporal requirement. hold does. 21 801 provides: 22 "(d) Statements hearsay.—A — 23 "(1) Prior witness.—The subject concerning "(B) express implied 24 defines nonhearsay Noting "troublesome" logic treating (because present cross-examination), decided treat once preconditions satisfied, evidence, just attack credibility. Notes 801(d)(1), 28 U.S.C.App., 773. meeting requirements thus placed same category oath another proceeding, identification admissions opponent. 801. 25 accord weighty, status To contrary, confined motive," phrase description "traditiona[l]" common law drafted. Notes, supra, counter impeachment bolster merely discredited. context, link suggested true. bolstering veracity story told. 26 This limitation instructive, establish reinforce significance say, within coverage ones makes sense. Impeachment charging is, matter, capable forceful refutation through predate motive. predates square rebuttal contrived consequence By contrast, carry little types involved. ("When takes form character, showing misconduct, convictions bad reputation, generally agreed color sustaining meet assault." (footnote omitted)); see 1131, 293 ("The obtains few sort—in cross-examination. reason loose rule" omitted)). 27 There arise instances postdate less way. suggest degree truthful, result influence; drafters intended countenance along indirect inferential chain, purpose confining open door introducing becomes If without reference frame find imbedded sound admit well. Whatever objections can leveled limiting designated clear us relying underlying position whenever tends product influence. Congress could adopted ease, providing, instance, "a relevant assess witness's truthfulness accuracy." that, sense, disputed issues assessing accuracy subject. narrow enacted Congress, cannot understood incorporate theory. 29 Our strengthened observation somewhat peculiar cases describe "Rule employs language—'rebut[ting] charge[s] motive'—consistently panoply pre-1975 decisions." E.O. Ohlbaum, Hobgoblin Evidence: An Analysis Consistent Proposal, 1987 B.Y.U.L.Rev. 231, 245. See, (1836); Hanger States, 398 91, 104 (CA8 1968); 710 30 concentration well use wording follows cases, suggests rule. B 31 conclusion confirmed Evidence. relied well-considered useful guide ascertaining meaning Rules. Huddleston 485 681, 688, 108 1496, 1500, 99 771 (1988); Owens, 484 554, 562, 838, 844, 98 951 (1988). Where, "Congress amend Committee's draft way commentary determining document enacted." Beech Aircraft Corp. Rainey, 488 153, 165-166, n. 9, 109 447-448, 102 445 respected scholarly commentary. Professor Cleary distinguished commentator members consulted considered views, criticisms, suggestions community preparing Notes. 32 disclose application principles, absent provisions contrary. Where depart antecedents, so. 804(b)(4), 790 area ante litem motam dropped, appropriately weight admissibility"); 804(b)(2), id., 789 exception familiar dying law, expanded beyond traditionally limits"); 804(b)(3), ibid. discards expands full logical limit."). give indication, abandoned entire discussion limited following comment: 33 "Prior Under stand, opposite wishes admission apparent why should received generally." 801(d)(1)(B); 34 Throughout rely authority light manner authors state requirement, ___, imagine drafters, noted new remained silent modify observed "[w]ith unanimity confronting Evidence, think unlikely scuttle entirely [the requirement]." Abel, 469 45, 50, 465, 468, 83 450 (1984). Here, rationale whisper explanation. Observing Edward Reporter drafted writings persuasive Daubert Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 113 2786, 125 (1993); 51-52, 468-69. responsible 1972 revision McCormick's treatise, included changes rules practice rehabilitation. discussion, occurs paragraphs treatise's rule, lacks indication abandoning limitation. 107. 36 bolstered "unwillingness prepared evidence." 801(d), "enumerates situations excepted hearsay," ibid., expressly contrasted Uniform 63(1) (1953), "which allows available cross-examination." 773 added). presents damaging party, least fabricate. read opened floodgates satisfied 403, concluded, distinction disappear. 37 observe place. taken reflects compromise views "bulk allowing "writers [who] ha[d] position." candidly "judgment experience logic." 38 "A contending legislative action changed settled burden legislature change." Green Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 504, 521, 1981, 557 (1989) (applying presumption interpreting 609). Nothing alter C 39 final favor affirmance advocated petitioner criticism, beginning 1940's, directed 40 "The differs absence oath, demeanor, aids credibility." Introduction Article VIII, 771. resolve however. Relevance admissibility. Otherwise, (absent specific exception), 802, let alone these law. exceptions drawn ."). certain dispose admissible. 41 Brief 40, like criticism. sure, preceding hearsay, purposes. Weinstein, Probative Force Hearsay, 46 Iowa L.Rev. 331, 344-345 (1961) (gathering sources). General criticism trial. 333 ("treating out himself hearsay" "practical absurdity instances"); Morgan, Dangers Application Concept, 62 Harv.L.Rev. 177, 192-196 (1948). alternative, moving toward case-by-case likely prejudicial effect. 338; Ladd, Relationship Principles Exclusionary Problem Proof, Minn.L.Rev. 506 (1934). Committee, explicit rejecting hearsay: 42 involving great measure minimizing predictability rulings, [and] enhancing trial." Introduction, 43 Given rejection 63(1), positions 44 statement-by-statement discretion; predictability; D 45 interpret it, especially criminal permit ones. point. response weak created remain permitted parade sympathetic credible recount detailed Although conduct occurred, shed minimal closing jury, seek impact aware Yet, concedes, 39, courts, circuits today, Even hypothesis, moreover, thing identified, origin ascertain. commented, approach, weigh surrounding probativeness court's assessment entail burden, guidance attorneys appellate reviewing III 47 sensitive attendant prosecution abusers. almost youth eye "[t]his litigants prefer different class cases." Salerno, 505 112 2503, 2507, 120 255 (1992). seeks introduce contain circumstantial indicia reliability, highly material better otherwise available, need distort met, exists eventuality. intimate view, section, principle. These matters, others, 48 holding 49 remanded proceedings opinion. 50 ordered. 51 whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THOMAS join, dissenting. 52 basic concerns, relevance. out, lawyer rehabilitate (after motive) pointing earlier—but earlier otherwise, lie. treatises, discussing matter heading "impeachment support" (McCormick) "relevancy" (Wigmore), "hearsay," clear, stating, example, 53 " 'prior [a] [of etc.,] originated.' Ante, __ (quoting 1972)). 54 believes hearsay-related codifies absolute timing I not. nothing Rather, carves subset formerly (a relies made). says "not hearsay." means rehabilitative (to motive), proponent substantively, (i.e., truth), 55 correct saying kinds categories ways, including placing claimed context; made; indicating memory faulty cross-examiner claimed; (d) recently Rubin, 609 51, 68 1979) (Friendly, concurring). But, where, several categories, premise, seems important, singled (category (d)) category's special rehabilitating Nor, event, understand premise help 56 doubt because, (used rehabilitation) also, occasion, seem force. What, above)? statements: "[i]f challenged, sense shortly event forget, support." 105, 88 Would (received rehabilitate) turn well? 57 More majority's follow "especially force" premise. basically turns tested cross-examination; normally (if true) statement. "timing" circumstance (the arose) diminish force, reliability. Thus, perspective, beside 58 time, restrict Juries trouble distinguishing kind listed Judges instructions purpose, but, practice, juries nonetheless tend consider value. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's ¶ 801(d)(1)(B)[01], 801-188 (1994) ("[A]s practical probability misunderstand ignore instruction [with covered Rule] anyway, good giving one."). possible "nonhearsay" reason, i.e., concession "more (also noting courtroom event). excluded 801(d)(1)(B)'s scope rehabilitation), perhaps concluded caused confusion lesser degree. rationale, basis pre postmotive each same. 59 sum, addresses problem unrelated so, plain words mean exactly say: properly admits "consistent testimony" "rebut[ting] truth says. 60 Assuming codify still answer whether, stands bar reasons never admission. absolute-sounding allow exceptions. And, permitting warrant. 61 thing, examples rule's claim "no relevancy" untrue. rebut, based speaker affected far powerful truth. moved acquaintance. suppose save life. Or, spontaneously, speaker's weaker similar situations, motivation; of, despite, motivation. Hence, can, appropriate circumstances, directly ante, causally connected uniform suggests. Cf. (1984) (stating unanimous, preserve it). minority right circumstances. Gandy, 1134, 1135 (CA5 1972); Copes 345 723, 726 (CADC 1964); State George, N.C. 324, 328 (1848). concede thumb absolute. searched commentators) vain explanation (citing cases). 63 One explanation: Trial judges easier administer would, do, flexible context. something greater flexibility grants tie rulings closely needs 401[01], pp. 401-8 401-9 apt yield sensible mechanical rule."). Furthermore, concedes seemingly bright-line, poses administrative difficulties. 64 acknowledged worked change direction flexibility. (1993). IV liberalizes S.Ct., 2794. "any tendency" probable Fed.Rules 401, 402. reject (assuming compliance rules) substantially outweighed tendency prejudice delay 403. codification, judge's administration 402, 403 keep barely relevant, wasting, jury. 54, 470 accorded wide [a]ssessing [proffered evidence], weighing factors counseling admissibility."); 401[01] (discussing judge); C. Wright K. Graham, Practice Procedure 5162 (1978 1994 Supp.). 65 Daubert, Frye F. 1013 1923), scientific gained acceptance field. U.S., 2792. Like issue, "rigid," setting forth "absolute prerequisite admissibility," "at odds 'liberal thrust' Rules." Id., liberalized supersede pre-existing compelling making condition Perhaps serve should, accordingly, above, case, circumstance. purely written), conclude survive 66 Irrespective arguments, nonetheless, writing continued therefore belief survive. argument. wanted insulate liberalizing effect, remarkably odd) doing so—both utterly relevancy. equally plausible write did—namely, impervious instruction. 67 Accordingly, authorize (where (subject course to, 403). (provided, course, requirements, availability cross-examination, satisfied). strict adherence for, significantly probative. (in effect (by nature) repeat Appeals, applying described reflected reevaluate factbound conclusion. affirm Appeals. syllabus constitutes Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. djQ concur join II-B. Part, devoted pertinent gives commentary," display "purpose," "inten[t]," draftsmen. previously acquiesced in, (1988), indeed myself engaged mature consideration persuaded me wrong. Having body experts, assuredly commentaries—ordinarily —concerning bear authoritativeness work draftsmen, Alexander Hamilton draftsman) Thomas Jefferson (not regard Constitution. authoritatively adopted—by statutory change. 2072, 2074 (1988 Supp. IV). my view Justices' thoughts, unpromulgated authoritative (as opposed persuasive) thoughts regarding (reflected exchanges memoranda issues) demonstrate And congressional draftsmen prepare amendments statute, promulgated says, regardless intent drafters. are, submitted Members initiating recommendations, 2073(d); certainty either procedure formally endorse disclaim cannot, power inherent bear. suffices. Indeed, adequately resolved resort all. ' knowledge" guidance" our 2794, (1993) 52, Preliminary Reading Neb.L.Rev. 908, 915 (1978))). uses tracks prescribes assumption adopts Court's premotive-statement rational corroborating playing tricks.

Category: 0