United States v. Tome
Citation: 513 U.S. 150 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1995)
Facts
Tome was convicted of sexually abusing his daughter. The child testified at trial, and Tome cross-examined her, suggesting her accusations were fabricated to enable her to remain with her mother rather than return to live with him. The government then introduced several out-of-court statements the child had made to babysitters, a pediatrician, and a social worker, all made after the alleged motive to lie (staying with her mother) had arisen. The government argued these were admissible as prior consistent statements under FRE 801(d)(1)(B).
Issue
Whether FRE 801(d)(1)(B) permits the introduction of a witness’s prior consistent statements made after the alleged motive to fabricate arose.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that FRE 801(d)(1)(B) only admits prior consistent statements made before the alleged motive to fabricate arose. Because the child’s statements were made after she had a motive to fabricate, they were not admissible as non-hearsay prior consistent statements.
Rule
Under FRE 801(d)(1)(B), a prior consistent statement is admissible as non-hearsay (substantive evidence) only if it was made before the alleged motive to fabricate or improper influence arose. A prior consistent statement made after the motive arose has no special logical force to rebut the charge of fabrication and does not qualify for the exemption.
Significance
Tome is the definitive case on the pre-motive requirement for prior consistent statements under FRE 801(d)(1)(B). It reflects the logical basis for the rule — that a consistent statement only rehabilitates a witness’s credibility if it predates the alleged reason to lie — and illustrates how courts interpret the temporal requirements of hearsay exemptions.