# Cuzzort v. State

> Supreme Court of Georgia · October 1, 1985 · 254 Ga. 745

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9849359

## Case

- **Full name:** Cuzzort v. the State
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Georgia
- **Decided:** October 1, 1985
- **Citations:** 254 Ga. 745; 334 S.E.2d 661; 1985 Ga. LEXIS 855
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bell
- **Judges:** Gregory, Hill, Bell, Smith
- **Cited by:** 155 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9849359

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9849359. Public record. Not legal advice.