## Facts

- Matthew Wayne Tome was prosecuted for aggravated sexual abuse of his four-year-old daughter on the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico.
- After the parents divorced, Tome had primary custody; the child’s mother lived in Colorado.
- At trial, the child testified, and the defense suggested the allegations were fabricated so the child could remain with her mother rather than return to Tome.
- To rebut this implied charge of fabrication, the government presented six witnesses who recounted the child’s out-of-court statements describing the abuse.
- The out-of-court statements were made after the alleged motive to fabricate (the custody dispute and desire to live with the mother) arose.
- The district court admitted these statements as non-hearsay prior consistent statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B), and the jury convicted Tome.

## Issues

1. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) permits admission, as non-hearsay, of a witness’s prior consistent statements made after an alleged motive to fabricate arose when offered to rebut a charge of fabrication or improper motive.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment affirming Tome’s conviction and remanded.
- Rule 801(d)(1)(B) incorporates the common-law requirement that a prior consistent statement must predate the alleged fabrication, influence, or motive.
- Because the child’s statements to the six witnesses were made after the alleged motive to fabricate arose, they were not admissible as non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(B).
- Justice Scalia concurred in part and in the judgment, agreeing on the premotive requirement while cautioning against reliance on Advisory Committee Notes.
- Justice Breyer dissented, arguing the Rule allowed a more flexible, relevance-based approach that could admit some post-motive consistent statements.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B), a prior consistent statement offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive is admissible as non-hearsay only if made before the alleged fabrication, influence, or motive arose.
- The Rule does not authorize admission of all consistent statements merely because they are relevant to credibility; it defines a limited category treated as non-hearsay substantive evidence.
- Post-motive consistent statements remain hearsay for purposes of Rule 801(d)(1)(B), though they may be admissible under other rules or exceptions.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Rule 801(d)(1)(B) permits substantive admission of prior consistent statements only when the statements were made before the charged motive to fabricate, rejecting a discretionary relevance-balancing approach for this provision and requiring exclusion of post-motive consistent statements under the Rule.


Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995)