Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

T describing the alleged assaults offered by the

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: It was proper for the court to admit the witness' prior consistent statements after the defense attorney had challenged his recollection. To be admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B), The prior consistent statement must have been made before the alleged improper influence or the attachment of the alleged motive to fabricate. Note: Whether the statement is a prior inconsistent statement, or a prior consistent statement, witness must be subject to crossexamination on all prior statements! This requirement is qualified if the witness is available to be called for recross examination. TOME v. UNITED STATES [Prior Consistent Statements admissible to rebut against fabrication or improper influence FRE 801(d)(1)(b)] Facts: Tome charged with felony of sexual abuse of his own daughter. Tome and child's mother had been divorced in 1988, and tribal court awarded joint custody. Tome's mother had unsuccessfully petitioned the court for primary custody, but received custody for the summer. The summer after her u...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online