Also known as: FRE 801(d)(1)(B) · Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) · Rule 801(d)(1)(B) · 801(d)(1)(B) · prior consistent statement
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A hearsay exclusion in the Federal Rules of Evidence that treats a prior consistent statement as nonhearsay when the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about the statement, the statement is consistent with the declarant's testimony, and the statement is offered to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated testimony or acted from a recent improper influence or motive. The statement must have been made before the alleged motive arose.
Finn Fletcher testified that his supervisor directed him to skip safety checks on a launch. Defense counsel suggested on cross that Finn invented the account only after learning he would be removed from the mission team. Finn then offered an email he sent the engineering lead immediately after the meeting, before any exclusion from the team. The court admitted the email because it predated the suggested motive and matched his testimony.
Fiona Foster testified that mechanics routinely skipped brake inspections on the bus involved in a crash. Counsel suggested on cross that Fiona invented the claim only after the company began investigating her work following the crash. Fiona offered a voice message she left two weeks before the crash describing the skipped inspections. The court admitted the message because it predated the post-crash investigation motive and aligned with her testimony.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Francois Fortier testified that he repeatedly warned the buyer about mold before a real estate closing. Counsel suggested on cross that Francois fabricated the warnings only after losing his commission when the deal collapsed. Francois offered an email he sent six weeks earlier documenting the buyer's downplaying of mold reports. The court admitted the email because it predated the alleged motive tied to the lost commission and was consistent with his testimony.
The prior consistent statement must have been made before the alleged motive to fabricate or improper influence arose. This timing ensures the statement carries independent probative value to rebut the charge rather than reflecting the motive itself.
Supporting sources
No. The rule focuses on the specific motive placed in issue by the cross-examination. An earlier unalleged motive may affect weight but does not bar admissibility when the statement predates the motive actually suggested to the jury.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the conditions are met the rule classifies the statement as nonhearsay, making it admissible substantively for the truth of the matter asserted as well as to rebut the fabrication charge.
Supporting sources
The proponent must show that the declarant testified and was subject to cross-examination about the statement, that the statement is consistent with the testimony, and that it was made before the motive alleged on cross-examination arose.
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…