Also known as: recent fabrication · recently fabricate · recent fabrication exception · rebut recent fabrication
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A charge that a witness's in-court testimony is a recent invention or stems from a recent improper motive or influence.
Nurse Elena testified that Dr. Chan ignored her warnings about Patricia's falling blood pressure during surgery. Valley Hospital suggested on cross that Elena invented the account after receiving a later disciplinary write-up. Patricia offered Elena's incident report and texts made the evening of surgery that repeated the same warnings. The statements predated the alleged motive and rebutted the charge that Elena recently fabricated her testimony.
Oliver testified that Star Fitness executives omitted veto language from Corey's endorsement contracts. Star Fitness suggested on cross that Oliver fabricated the account after her termination and new consulting work for Corey's agent. Corey offered emails Oliver sent six months before termination that repeated the identical account of the negotiations. The emails predated the alleged motive and rebutted the charge that Oliver recently fabricated her testimony.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A prior consistent statement rebuts the charge when it is consistent with the witness's trial testimony and was made before the alleged motive to fabricate arose. The statement must directly address the specific fabrication charge raised on cross-examination. Timing is critical because only statements that predate the motive can rebut the suggestion of recent invention.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the statement satisfies the requirements of Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(i), it is defined as nonhearsay and is admissible both to rehabilitate credibility and as substantive evidence. The jury may consider the statement for its truth once the charge of recent fabrication is raised and the timing condition is met.
Supporting sources
The statement remains admissible if it rebuts the specific charge of recent fabrication presented at trial. An earlier possible motive suggested by other facts goes to weight rather than admissibility. The rule focuses on whether the statement predates the motive identified during cross-examination.
Supporting sources
No. A statement made after the alleged motive arose cannot rebut the charge of recent fabrication. The timing requirement demands that the prior statement precede the motive identified on cross-examination. Statements that postdate the motive are excluded under the rule.
Supporting sources
…made by a declarant who testifies as a witness, that are consistent with the testimony and are offered to rebut a charge of a "recent fabrication or improper influence or motive." Fed. Rule Evid. 801(d)(1)(B). The question is whether out-ofcourt consistent statements made after the alleged fabrication, or after the alleged improper…