Tome v. United States case brief summary
513 U.S. 150 (1995)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner was charged with sexual child abuse of his daughter under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1153, et. seq. During trial, the court admitted certain witness statements, notwithstanding the fact that they were introduced after charges of recent fabrication had been made. Petitioner appealed the admission of these statements and the appellate court affirmed. Petitioner appealed on writ of certiorari.
ISSUE
The question submitted to the court was whether out-of-court consistent statements made after an alleged fabrication, improper influence, or motive arose, were admissible underFed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B).
DISCUSSION
Order admitting witness statements notwithstanding alleged motive to fabricate was reversed and remanded because court found federal evidence rule only permitted introduction of consistent, out-of-court statements to rebut recent fabrication, improper influence, or motive charges, when those statements were made prior to charge of recent fabrication, improper influence, or motive.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
513 U.S. 150 (1995)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Before the court on writ of certiorari
was a judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit holding witness's out-of-court statements admissible
under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) even though made after
witness's alleged motive to fabricate arose, in prosecution for
sexual child abuse under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1153 et seq.CASE FACTS
Petitioner was charged with sexual child abuse of his daughter under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1153, et. seq. During trial, the court admitted certain witness statements, notwithstanding the fact that they were introduced after charges of recent fabrication had been made. Petitioner appealed the admission of these statements and the appellate court affirmed. Petitioner appealed on writ of certiorari.
ISSUE
The question submitted to the court was whether out-of-court consistent statements made after an alleged fabrication, improper influence, or motive arose, were admissible underFed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B).
DISCUSSION
- Due to division of federal appellate courts, the Court accepted.
- The Court reversed and remanded the appellate court order because it found that Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) only permitted the introduction of consistent, out-of-court statements to rebut a recent fabrication, improper influence, or motive charge, when those statements were made prior to the time the charges of recent fabrication, improper influence, or motive arose.
Order admitting witness statements notwithstanding alleged motive to fabricate was reversed and remanded because court found federal evidence rule only permitted introduction of consistent, out-of-court statements to rebut recent fabrication, improper influence, or motive charges, when those statements were made prior to charge of recent fabrication, improper influence, or motive.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
No comments:
Post a Comment