The opinion
PARKS, Presiding Judge,
concurring in results:
It requires no great triumph in legal reasoning to recognize that 12 O.S.Supp. 1984 § 2803.1, was designed to be another exception to the hearsay rule. Therefore, a *1079 relevant inquiry should begin with determining whether the testimony of Dr. Brown and Amy Ward was admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted, or for some other purpose. If the testimony was to prove consistency and/or rebut a claim of inconsistent stories the inquiry is over. If the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross examination concerning the statement, and the statement is consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or motive, then the statement is not hearsay and no notice or other faithfulness to the requirements of 12 O.S.Supp.1984 § 2808.1 is necessary. 12 O.S.1981 § 2801(4)(a)(2).
The disputed testimony in this case did not fall within the definition of hearsay because it was not offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. See Brown v. State, 762 P.2d 959, 961 (Okl.Cr.1988). The trial judge made it clear that the testimony of Amy Ward was admitted to show the consistency of the victims statements. (Tr. 377). Further, the trial judge admitted the testimony of Dr. Brown to rebut the claim by the defense that the physical damage to one of the victims was the result of a bicycle accident. (Tr. 356).
Insofar as the majority opinion does not conflict with these findings I concur in the opinion. However, I do not agree that the testimony of anyone may be received in rebuttal regardless of whether it may be hearsay or not. If the testimony of Dr. Brown or Amy Ward had been admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule under 12 O.S.Supp.1984 § 2803.1, then the guidelines established by the statute would have to be followed regardless of whether it was labeled as rebuttal testimony.