Also known as: 801(d)(1)(B) · Rule 801(d)(1)(B) · prior consistent statement
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of evidence that treats a witness's prior consistent statement as nonhearsay when the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination, the statement is consistent with the testimony, and it rebuts a charge of recent fabrication or improper motive, provided the statement was made before the motive arose.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A child testified at trial that her stepfather had abused her. Defense counsel implied on cross that the child invented the account to live with her mother. The government offered the child's earlier statements to her pediatrician and social worker describing the same events. Those statements predated the alleged motive and were admitted as nonhearsay.
Edward testified that his former employer directed him to copy rival code. Defense counsel suggested he fabricated the account after deciding to sue. Edward offered encrypted chat messages sent months earlier to a colleague describing the same instruction. The messages were admitted because they predated any litigation motive.
Miranda testified that she warned a buyer about mold in a property. Defense counsel implied she invented the warnings after losing her commission. Central offered an email Miranda sent weeks earlier documenting the same concerns. The email was admitted to rebut the recent-fabrication charge.
The statement must predate the specific motive alleged during cross-examination. An earlier unrelated motive does not bar admission if the charge at trial focuses on a later motive.
Supporting sources
No. The rule applies to any consistent statement offered to rebut recent fabrication, regardless of whether it was sworn.
Supporting sources
The statement is admissible as nonhearsay and may be considered for its truth as well as to rehabilitate credibility.
Supporting sources
…prior to October 1981. [^maj-6]: In the alternative the court held that Rainey's testimony should have been admitted as a prior consistent statement under Rule 801(d)(1)(B). [^maj-7]: Baker involved a police officer's report on an automobile accident. While there was no direct witness as to the color of the traffic lights at the…