Tome v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 · Evidence

513 U.S. 150 (1995)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidenceprior consistent statementsFederal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B)premotive requirementrecent fabricationimproper influenceimproper motivenonhearsay

Facts

At trial, the Government's theory was that Tome sexually assaulted his daughter while she was in his custody, and that she later disclosed the abuse while staying with her mother. The defense argued the allegations were concocted so the child would not have to return to her father and thus were motivated by her desire to remain with her mother. After the child testified, the Government introduced six witnesses who recounted seven out-of-court statements by the child describing the assaults, and the trial court admitted them under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) on the theory that they rebutted the charge of motive to fabricate. Those statements were made after the alleged motive to fabricate had arisen.

Issue

Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) permits admission of a witness's prior consistent out-of-court statements to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive when the statements were made after the alleged fabrication, influence, or motive arose.

Rule

Under Rule 801(d)(1)(B), a declarant's prior consistent statement is admissible as nonhearsay to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive only if the statement was made before the alleged fabrication, influence, or motive arose.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal fraud trial in Denver, Nora Kim testifies that she saw her supervisor alter invoices in March. On cross-examination, the defense suggests Nora invented the story after the company fired her in July, and the prosecution offers an email Nora sent to her sister in April describing the same invoice alterations.

Is the April email admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) to rebut the charge of fabrication?

Explanation. Rule 801(d)(1)(B) allows a prior consistent statement as nonhearsay only when it is offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive and the statement was made before that alleged motive or influence arose. Here, the defense claims Nora fabricated after being fired in July, and the email was sent in April, so it satisfies the premotive requirement.