Background
Victoria, who was homeless, was sitting behind a restaurant when Eric Avante Haslett arrived with a woman. After Victoria told Haslett he could not remain there and said she would call police, Haslett drew a BB gun that Victoria believed was a real firearm, pointed it at her, and threatened to kill her.
Police responded, took Victoria’s statement, and later brought her to Haslett, whom she identified. A jury acquitted Haslett of attempted armed robbery but convicted him of aggravated assault. The superior court imposed an 11.25-year prison sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the responding officer to testify about Victoria’s prior consistent statements after defense counsel cross-examined her about whether her memory was faulty and whether her account was evolving.
Under Arizona Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B)(ii), prior consistent statements may be admitted substantively to rehabilitate a testifying witness whose credibility has been attacked. The court rejected Haslett’s argument that admissible rehabilitation had to be confined to the precise details raised on cross-examination. Once the defense attacked Victoria’s credibility, the trial court could admit relevant, nonprejudicial prior consistent statements addressing the suggested inconsistency or faulty memory. The testimony was not impermissible bolstering because it followed, rather than preceded, the credibility attack and merely confirmed Victoria’s prior statements.
Key Takeaways
- A cross-examination suggesting that a witness has a faulty memory or an evolving account can trigger Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(ii).
- Prior consistent statements need not match only the exact subject of the impeachment to be admissible for rehabilitation.
- Such statements remain subject to ordinary relevance and prejudice limits under Rules 402 and 403.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Arizona Court of Appeals’ recent reading of Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(ii): even a relatively limited credibility attack can allow substantive use of a witness’s prior consistent statements. Litigants should therefore account for the risk that questioning a witness’s memory or consistency may open the door to corroborating testimony from officers or other witnesses.