Impeachment | Problem 16

P sues Department Store for false imprisonment. Department Stores defense is that it was justified in detaining P because it observed P attempting to steal a handbag. P denies that she attempted to steal the handbag. P then calls W to testify that at a recent party, P said that she did not attempt to steal anything before she was detained.

Department Store objects to Ws testimony? Ruling?

Objection sustained. Hearsay. Through W, P is trying to admit a prior consistent statement. But statements made out of court offered for their trutheven those made by partiesare subject to the hearsay rule. The statement here is offered precisely for its truth. Moreover, the statement does not fit the non-hearsay exclusion of FRE 801(d)(B)(prior consistent statement) because it is not being offered to rebut a recent fabrication or to rehabilitate the declarants credibility.

Of course, as in every other blog entry, you must consult all applicable laws in your jurisdiction, and you are not to rely on this basic educational material as legal advice.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheLawOfEvidenceByJesseLangel/~3/YNoj1K2Ud7s/impeachment-problem-16.html