Court Opinion

ID: 9843754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:42:59.953209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:54.277627
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring in the result.
[¶ 19] Because the district court did not err in admitting evidence of the child witness’s prior consistent statements, I concur in the result.
[¶ 20] The child witness’s testimony at trial was consistent with the child’s prior statements. The veracity of the child had been called into question. Under these circumstances, the evidence of the child’s prior consistent statements is not hearsay in light of N.D.R.Ev. 801(d)(1)(h):
A statement is not hearsay if:
(1) Prior Statement by Witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is ... (ii) consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to *639rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive ....
See State v. Ramsey, 2005 ND 42, ¶¶ 13-16, 692 N.W.2d 498.
[¶ 21] If there had been an objection to the testimony at trial as to the child’s prior consistent statements, the district court would presumably have overruled the objection, noting that the statements were not hearsay. On appeal, the defendant argues N-D.R.Ev. 803(24), and the State failed to cite the controlling rule in response. I am unwilling to say a district court, that in fact did not err at trial, “plainly erred” because the State failed to cite the correct rule on appeal.
[¶ 22] Dale V. Sandstrom