Anderson v. Com.
282 Va. 457
Va.2011Background
- Victim, a 41-year-old woman, was assaulted by Anderson on May 1, 2009 in Pittsylvania County.
- Trial was a bench trial in circuit court; defendant testified and raised credibility issues via impeachment.
- Defense sought to impeach victim with a prior inconsistent statement about seeing a gun.
- Commonwealth sought to rehabilitate the victim through prior consistent statements to Dr. Curtis and Officer Klauss.
- Evidence showed victim reported the assault quickly to a counselor and police, and the defendant later admitted to oral sex.
- Circuit court admitted the prior consistent statements over objection; appellate court affirmed denial of appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior consistent statements were admissible to rehabilitate credibility after impeachment | Second exception to exclusion applies; statements are non-hearsay for credibility | Statements were overly detailed; risk of impermissible repetition | Admissible under the second exception; harmless error overall |
| Whether admission of the statements affected the trial's fairness | Independent corroboration supports credibility; error minimal | Restatement of victim's account too extensive | Harmless error; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Moon, 143 Va. 425 (1925) (repetition does not render testimony more trustworthy)
- Faison v. Hudson, 243 Va. 397 (1992) (prior consistent statements may rehabilitate credibility after impeachment)
- Ruhlin v. Samaan, 282 Va. 371 (2011) (second exception to rehabilitation; motive to falsify must be precedent to admissibility)
- Clere v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 472 (1971) (prior consistent statements may be admitted to reflect credibility; not for truth)
- Creasy v. Commonwealth, 9 Va.App. 470 (1990) (shows immateriality of who introduced the statements; admissibility same)
- Rose v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 3 (2005) (harmless-error standard for non-constitutional error)
- Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253 (2001) (non-constitutional error is harmless if record shows fair trial and no substantial influence)