first adopting the rule regarding prior consistent testimony in a situation where one statement was consistent with the “clear implication” of the other
How later courts described this case
- first adopting the rule regarding prior consistent testimony in a situation where one statement was consistent with the “clear implication” of the other
- purpose of the hearsay rule satisfied when declarant is in court and available for cross-examination
- purpose of hearsay rule satisfied where declarant is in court and available for cross-examination
- clarified in Woodard v. State, 269 Ga. 317, 319-320 (2) (496 SE2d 896) (1998)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Bell, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the opinion and judgment of the court. I write separately to emphasize that in this case the witness’ out-of-court statement rebutted the defense counsel’s questioning concerning the possibility of recent fabrication and improper influence. As I read the majority opinion, it sanctions the admission of prior out-of-court consistent statements only if the in-court witness’ veracity has first been expressly or impliedly placed in issue. See generally McCormick on Evidence, § 251 (2d ed.) (West 1972 & 1978 Pocket Part).
In addition, I note that if my interpretation is correct, the rule established by the majority opinion of this court is consistent with the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provide that a “statement is not hearsay if . . . [t]he declarant testifies at the trial or hearing 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 improper influence or nature . . . .” Fed. R. Evid. 801 (d) (1) (B).