Tome v. United States

1995-01-10

Headline: Court limits use of prior consistent statements, ruling they are admissible only if made before the alleged motive to fabricate, making it harder for prosecutors to rely on later out-of-court confirmations in trials (especially child‑abuse cases).

Holding: The Court held that Rule 801(d)(1)(B) permits prior consistent out-of-court statements to be used only if they were made before the charged recent fabrication or improper influence or motive arose.

Real World Impact:

Restricts prosecutors from using post-motive prior consistent statements as substantive evidence.
Requires trial judges to admit such statements only if made before the alleged motive.
Encourages use of other hearsay exceptions like medical statements or residual exception.

Topics: evidence rules, hearsay and prior statements, child abuse trials, trial procedure

Summary

Background

A man named Tome was tried for sexually abusing his young daughter, A.T., while on the Navajo Reservation. At trial the child testified briefly in court. The Government then called six witnesses who reported seven out-of-court statements the child had made after the family custody dispute and after the mother had raised allegations. The trial judge admitted those out-of-court statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B). The Tenth Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review.

Reasoning

The core question was whether Rule 801(d)(1)(B) allows a witness’s prior consistent statements to be used as substantive evidence when those statements were made after the alleged motive to lie arose. The majority traced a long-standing common‑law rule and the Advisory Committee Notes and concluded the Rule incorporates a premotive requirement: those consistent statements are admissible under 801(d)(1)(B) only if made before the charged recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit because the required premotive showing was not made here. The opinion confined its holding to Rule 801(d)(1)(B) and did not rule on other hearsay exceptions.

Real world impact

After this decision, trial courts must generally exclude prior consistent statements offered under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) unless they predate the alleged motive to fabricate. Prosecutors and defense lawyers will need to consider other hearsay exceptions (for example, medical statements or the residual exception) or different proof strategies. The case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia joined most of the opinion but disagreed about treating Advisory Committee Notes as authoritative; Justice Breyer (joined by three Justices) dissented, arguing for a more flexible approach allowing postmotive statements in some circumstances under relevance and trial‑judge discretion.