## Facts

- Emery Joseph Beaulieu was tried in federal court for two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child in Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c).
- The government alleged Beaulieu sexually abused S.L., a minor, in his home on an Indian reservation while she was babysitting.
- S.L. testified she awoke on a sofa bed to someone who smelled like beer, found her pants pulled down, and described sexual contact and anal penetration by Beaulieu.
- S.L. reported the incident at different times to her sister, a friend, her mother, and later to a psychologist and a nurse.
- At trial, the government called S.L.’s mother, friend, nurse, and psychologist to repeat S.L.’s prior statements describing anal penetration.
- The district court admitted much of this testimony as prior consistent statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B), and portions were also defended as admissible under Rule 803(4) (medical diagnosis or treatment).

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting multiple witnesses’ testimony repeating S.L.’s prior statements as nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(B), and whether any of it was otherwise admissible under hearsay exceptions such as Rule 803(4).
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions notwithstanding any evidentiary error.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion by admitting substantial hearsay as prior consistent statements because the defense impeachment did not amount to a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence/motive, and the statements did not satisfy the pre-motive timing requirement.
- The court further held Rule 803(4) did not justify the full narrative repetition presented through the nurse and psychologist; the testimony exceeded what was necessary for diagnosis or treatment.
- The court found the remaining evidence, viewed favorably to the verdict, was sufficient to permit conviction, so the remedy was retrial rather than acquittal.
- The evidentiary errors were not harmless because the case turned on credibility and the repeated adult recitations of S.L.’s account likely affected the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 801(d)(1)(B) permits admission of prior consistent statements only to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, and only if the consistent statement was made before the alleged motive or influence arose.
- Prior consistent statements are not admissible merely to rehabilitate a witness after general impeachment (e.g., attacks on memory, perception, or inconsistencies) or to bolster credibility through repetition.
- Rule 803(4) may admit statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment, including in child-abuse contexts, but it does not authorize broad narrative recounting used primarily as corroborative repetition at trial.
- When credibility is central, cumulative admission of repetitive hearsay that places multiple adult witnesses behind a child’s accusation can be prejudicial and may require reversal if not harmless.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit ordered a new trial because the government improperly reinforced the complainant’s testimony through repeated out-of-court statements admitted under an overbroad application of Rules 801(d)(1)(B) and 803(4), and the resulting prejudice was not harmless despite otherwise sufficient evidence.


United States v. Beaulieu, 194 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 1999)