Francis Santos Castaneda v. State, A21A0035

Background

Victim (then adult at reporting) told a counselor in Feb 2015 that her father, Francis Santos Castaneda, had molested her beginning at age 11–12 and continuing until about age 16; she reported to police in May 2015.
A special victims detective conducted a lengthy, recorded forensic interview of the victim; a redacted 43‑minute portion was played at trial.
The State obtained a pretrial ruling admitting the victim’s prior consistent statements; defense counsel initially did not object to the general motion but later objected to playing the entire recorded interview as improper bolstering/hearsay.
The recorded interview contained leading questions, materially more detail than the victim’s brief trial testimony, and statements about additional alleged acts and family dynamics not in the indictment.
A jury convicted Castaneda of two counts of child molestation; the trial court denied his motion for new trial.
The Court of Appeals held the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the recorded interview as a prior consistent statement and that the error was not harmless, reversed the convictions, and ordered a new trial; it declined to resolve remaining claims.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Castaneda's Argument	Held
Admissibility of the victim’s recorded forensic interview as a prior consistent statement under OCGA § 24‑6‑613(c)	The recording is the "purest" prior consistent statement and admissible because the victim’s credibility was placed at issue.	The recording was hearsay, improperly bolstering, contained leading questions and much more detail than trial testimony, and thus did not qualify as a prior consistent statement.	Recording was not admissible as a prior consistent statement; trial court abused its discretion in admitting it.
Whether defense cross‑examination (and arguments) raised recent fabrication or improper influence/motive sufficient to allow admission	The cross‑examination and references to meetings with the DA implied recent review/collusion and thus put fabrication/influence at issue.	The questioning showed only that the victim had reviewed the interview and had limited contact with the DA; it did not allege coercion, fabrication, or improper influence after the recorded interview.	The Court held the cross‑examination did not sufficiently allege recent fabrication or improper influence to justify admission on that ground.
Whether the recording "logically rebuts" the general attacks on credibility	The recording corroborates and fleshes out the victim’s story and rebuts credibility attacks.	The recording was not merely cumulative — it added new substantive details and timing not in trial testimony.	The Court found the recording did not "logically rebut" the general credibility attacks because it went beyond the victim’s trial testimony.
Prejudice / Harmless‑error analysis	Any error was harmless because the victim testified and other witnesses recounted her outcry.	The State’s case relied heavily on the bolstered statements; the recording added critical weight and non‑indicted allegations.	Error was not harmless; improper bolstering likely contributed to the guilty verdicts, requiring reversal and a new trial.

Key Cases Cited

Cowart v. State, 294 Ga. 333 (2013) (prior consistent statements admissible only when veracity has been affirmatively placed in issue; rule on recent fabrication/influence)
Jones v. State, 340 Ga. App. 568 (2017) (discussion of when meetings with the DA may imply shaping testimony)
Donaldson v. State, 244 Ga. App. 89 (2000) (earlier decision treating plea‑alone as placing victim veracity at issue; Court of Appeals overruled Division 3 of Donaldson here)
Dimauro v. State, 341 Ga. App. 710 (2017) (prior statement must predate alleged fabrication/influence to rebut such charge)
Sullins v. State, 347 Ga. App. 628 (2018) (videotaped forensic interview admission reversed where interview was not cumulative and likely affected verdict)
Puckett v. State, 303 Ga. 719 (2018) (prior consistent statements admissible where cross‑examination implied fabrication or coached testimony)
Cash v. State, 294 Ga. App. 741 (2008) (improper bolstering can add critical weight to testimony and require reversal)