The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault arising from an alleged improper search conducted during an arrest.
The appeal argued that the trial judge erred by admitting and relying on a prior consistent statement made by the complainant to another officer, by failing to consider inconsistencies in the complainant’s accounts of the searches, and by failing to weigh credibility concerns arising from the complainant’s admitted dishonesty about drug use.
The court held that prior consistent statements are presumptively inadmissible and found that the trial judge improperly admitted and relied upon such a statement to bolster the complainant’s credibility.
The court concluded that the statement was used for the truth of its contents and as a significant foundation for the credibility finding.
As this constituted an error affecting an important piece of evidence, the conviction could not stand.