A witness' prior consistent statement is admissible if: (1) the veracity of a witness' trial testimony has been placed in issue at trial; (2) the witness is present at trial; and (3) the witness is available for cross-examination. Sands v. State, 311 Ga. App. 170 (2011). Unless a witness' veracity is affirmatively placed in issue, the witness' prior consistent statement is pure hearsay which cannot be admitted to corroborate the witness or to bolster the witness' credibility. Johnson v. State, 289 Ga. 498 (2011); Blackmon v. State, 272 Ga. 858 (2000). “A witness's veracity is placed in issue so as to permit the introduction of a prior consistent statement only if affirmative charges of recent fabrication, improper influence, or improper motive are raised during cross-examination." Decapite v. State, 312 Ga. App. 832 (2011); Baugh v. State, 276 Ga. 736 (2003).
Therefore, on direct examination, the State cannot go into the witness' prior consistent statement since the defendant has yet to question the witness. But see pate v. State, 315 Ga. App. 205 (2012) (allowing prior consistent statement to be admitted subject to later attack on credibility). In addition, “to be admissible to refute the allegation of ... improper motive, the prior statement must predate the alleged fabrication, influence, or motive.” Mister v. State, 286 Ga. 303 (2009); Mims v. State, 314 Ga. App. 170 (2012); O.C.G.A. § 24-6- 613(b).
A party may introduce a prior consistent statement of a forgetful witness where the witness testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination. Danenberg v. State, 291 Ga. 439 (2012); Williams v. State, 291 Ga. App. 279 (2008). An attorney can use notes he has taken when listening to a witness' prior statement to impeach that witness at trial. If the attorney has knowledge of a prior statement by a witness which contradicts the testimony of the witness at trial, the attorney can impeach the witness with the prior statement. James v. State, 316 Ga. App. 406 (2012).
The prior statement does not have to be admitted into evidence before it can be used for impeachment. Duckworth v. State, 268 Ga. 566 (1977).
When a prior consistent statement is erroneously admitted a new trial is required if the hearsay prior consistent statement contributed to the verdict. Pate v. State, 315 Ga. App. 205 (2012); Connelly v. State, 295 Ga. App. 765 (2009). A jury charge on prior consistent statements should not be given. Stephens v. State, 289 Ga. 758 (2011).