Court Opinion

ID: 9690107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:53:55.3813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:53.604357
License: Public Domain

FOSHEIM, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
It is my understanding the majority finds Mrs. Horstmeyer’s repetition of Dawn’s prior consistent statements erroneous for three reasons: (1) the trial judge admitted prior consistent statements merely due to remarks made in opening statements and not on any evidentiary attack on the witness; (2) the trial judge failed to determine whether the alleged victim had a motive to lie; (3) the judge failed to consider whether these statements were made before or after any improper motive to lie arose. This dissent is structured accordingly.
(1) The majority opinion is correct in holding that a party may not offer a prior consistent statement based solely upon an attack on a witness made in the opposing party’s opening statement or upon an anticipated impeachment. Binder, Hearsay Handbook § 2.14 at 53-54 (2d ed. 1983); 4 Louisell, Federal Evidence, § 420 at 198-99. What the majority overlooks, however, is that even if Dawn’s prior statements were prematurely admitted because no evidence impeaching Dawn’s credibility had yet been offered, “the subsequent occurrence of the attack may [have] cure[d] any error in previous receipt of the statement.” Louisell, supra, at 198-9 (and cases cited therein). Here the defense charged, albeit subsequent to Mrs. Horstmeyer’s testifying, that Dawn was lying at trial because she did not want to move to Watertown with her parents, and was seeking revenge against her father for his refusal to help finance her college education. Indeed, since the defendant denied any sexual touching of Dawn, his defense required impeaching her credibility. When subsequent to Mrs. Horstmeyer’s testimony, defense counsel impeached Dawn it thereby “opened the door” for Mrs. Horstmeyer’s repetition of Dawn’s previous consistent statements, and the premature admission of these statements was cured. U.S. v. Gonzalez, 700 F.2d 196, 200-02 (5th Cir. 1983); U.S. v. Allen, 579 F.2d 531, 532-33 (9th Cir.1978); U.S. v. Simmons, 567 F.2d 314, 321-22 (7th Cir.1977). According to Binder, to hold as the majority does, that it is reversible error to admit a prior consistent statement before the witness is impeached, is to “exalt form over substance.” Binder, supra, 1985 Supp. at 19. See also U.S. v. Chanya, 700 F.2d 192, (5th Cir. 1983) (not error to allow a prior consistent statement of a witness to be admitted before that witness is impeached if the witness is subsequently called and the later testimony rebuts the charge of recent fabrication or improper motive.)
(2) Without supporting authority, the majority concludes the trial judge erred for failing to determine whether the alleged victim actually had a motive to lie. This is simply an incorrect interpretation of the Rule. The crucial occurrence making the Rule operative is the party opposing admission of the prior statement opening the door to its receipt by attempting to establish that the witness who made the prior consistent statement is now lying or has an improper influence behind her testimony. Fed.R.Evid. 801 (d)(1)(B) advisory committee note. The Rule allows rehabilitation of a witness when there'has been “a charge against him” of fabrication (SDCL 19-16-2(2)); not just where there is any basis in fact for the impeachment. In other words, the Judge merely decides whether any such *94charge was made; not whether there actually is a motive to fabricate.
(3) The third error the majority finds with the trial court’s ruling is that the Judge failed to determine whether the earlier consistent statements Dawn made to Mrs. Horstmeyer occurred prior to the emergence of any improper motive on Dawn’s part. I agree this is required by the third prong of the Thompson test; however, I believe the statements qualify under the test.
As stated above, the defense alleged Dawn was lying at trial because she resisted the move to Watertown and because her father would not help fund her college education. Dawn made her statements to Mrs. Horstmeyer in August of 1983. This would be shortly after she learned of her parents desire that she move to Water-town. Thus, the prior consistent statements were not admissible to rebut the defense’s charge that she was lying to avoid the move to Watertown, because it fails the third prong of the Thompson test. However, the defendant testified he informed Dawn of the family financial situation in April of 1984. TT 188. Thus, Dawn’s statements to Mrs. Horstmeyer were made prior to the defendant informing Dawn of the lack of financial assistance her parents would afford her. This makes Dawn’s prior consistent statements admissible to rebut any effect of this asserted motive for her to lie. The defense’s decision to assert that Dawn was lying because of the family financial situation “opened the door” to the admission of Dawn’s prior consistent statement to Mrs. Horstmeyer to rebut the charge that Dawn was lying at trial.
Finally, even if admitting the statements was error, it was harmless error. As the majority’s opinion acknowledges, Dawn’s brother Allen testified that Dawn told him the defendant had been molesting her. More importantly, Pat Adams, a member of the Child Protection Team, was allowed to testify about statements Dawn made to him. His account of these statements regarding the defendant’s touching of Dawn paralleled Mrs. Horstmeyer’s account of Dawn’s statements to her. Since the testimony of both witnesses was received without objection, it was solid evidence before the jury as the majority recognizes. Finally, the testimony of Dawn herself detailed what her father had done to her and repeated what she told Mrs. Horstmeyer. Therefore, the testimony of Mrs. Horst-meyer regarding statements Dawn made to her, in light of this ether testimony, was cumulative only. Its admission was therefore nonprejudicial and no more than harmless error. State v. Tribitt, 327 N.W.2d 132 (S.D.1982) citing Matter of N.J.W., 273 N.W.2d 134 (S.D.1978); Matter of D.T., 89 S.D. 590, 237 N.W.2d 166 (1975); Alberts v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co., 80 S.D. 303, 123 N.W.2d 96 (1963).