Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2013

First Page

19

Volume

38

Issue

May

Source Publication Abbreviation

Mont. Law.

Abstract

This article is part two of a two-part series on prior statements in Montana. This article examines prior consistent statements under M.R.E.. 801(d)(1)(B) and how the language of the rule is unclear and confusing, especially compared to the federal version. As a result, Montana has a myriad of case law attempting to apply the Montana rule on prior consistent statements. The article first provides background to the establishment of the rule about prior consistent statements. Next the article discusses both federal and Montana "trigger" cases and compares Montana's approach with that of the federal courts. The article then offers suggestions as to how Montana should enforce the rule on prior consistent statements, concluding that the easiest way to clean up this troublesome area of Montana evidence law is to change the language of the rule itself so that it conforms exactly with the current version of the F.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B).

Download

Included in

Evidence Commons

Share

COinS