Stevenson v. State, 149 A.3d 505

Background

In June 2014 three children (ages 9–13) visited family in Delaware and later reported sexual contact by Joel R. Stevenson, a registered sex offender; police videotaped each child’s July 2, 2014 statements.
Stevenson was indicted on counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact (1st and 2nd degree) and two counts of Sex Offender Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Child; after a mistrial and bifurcation the case proceeded to jury trial.
At trial each child testified essentially verbatim to their earlier videotaped statements; because of that cumulative overlap, the State did not play the tapes during its case-in-chief.
On cross-examination defense counsel extensively questioned the children, their mother, and State witnesses about meeting with prosecutors/social workers before trial and whether the children watched their videotaped interviews—suggesting possible coaching or improper influence.
In rebuttal the State sought to play the redacted pre-trial videotaped statements to rebut the defense’s insinuation of recent fabrication or improper influence; the trial court admitted them under D.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B), § 3507, and the court’s control over evidence presentation; defense counsel reviewed and expressly declined to object to the redactions.
Jury convicted Stevenson on all counts; he appealed arguing (1) no charge of improper influence existed so D.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B) did not apply, (2) the tapes were cumulative under § 3507 and inadmissible, and (3) redactions were inadequate/prejudicial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under D.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B) (prior consistent statements)	The State: tapes admissible to rebut defense’s express or implied charge of recent fabrication/improper influence after cross-examination raised that issue.	Stevenson: defense only challenged memory, not a charge of conscious alteration; therefore 801(d)(1)(B) does not apply.	Court held defense’s cross-examination and themes reasonably implied a charge of improper influence/conscious alteration; tapes admissible under 801(d)(1)(B).
Cumulative-evidence exclusion under 11 Del. C. § 3507	The State: although tapes were cumulative, they were properly used in rebuttal to respond to coaching/improper influence claims.	Stevenson: tapes merely repeated in-court testimony and lacked additional probative value; thus inadmissible as cumulative.	Court held prior statements, though cumulative, were probative rebuttal evidence of improper influence and admissible; no need to resolve § 3507 separately after 801(d)(1)(B) ruling.
"Opening the door" / trial-court control over presentation (D.R.E. 611(a))	The State: defense placed videotapes into play through cross-examination and opening, permitting limited rebuttal use.	Stevenson: relevance alone does not render inadmissible hearsay admissible.	Court held defense opened the door to the tapes’ relevance; but emphasized relevance does not override hearsay rules—admission rested on 801(d)(1)(B) (rebuttal) rather than mere relevance.
Redaction and prejudice waiver	The State: redacted tapes were reviewed by defense and any objection was waived; tapes properly limited to declarant statements.	Stevenson: redactions left prejudicial interviewer statements and inadmissible commentary that bolstered credibility; error warrants review.	Court held defense affirmatively waived the redaction objection by approving the redacted tapes at sidebar; further, appellant failed to provide transcripts/tapes for appellate review, so claim fails.

Key Cases Cited

Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (discusses limits on admitting prior consistent statements and requirement they rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence)
Milligan v. State, 116 A.3d 1232 (Del. 2015) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and reversal for prejudice)
Richardson v. State, 43 A.3d 906 (Del. 2012) (noting interview tapes may be cumulative when in-court testimony mirrors pretrial statements)
United States v. Frazier, 469 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2006) (distinguishing memory challenges from allegations of conscious alteration; line-drawing for admitting prior consistent statements)
King v. State, 239 A.2d 707 (Del. 1968) (affirmative waiver where counsel states no objection to evidence)
Adams v. State, 124 A.3d 38 (Del. 2015) (prior consistent statements inherently repeat earlier testimony but may be admissible as rebuttal)
Smith v. State, 913 A.2d 1197 (Del. 2006) (explaining the "opening the door" evidentiary principle)
Shelton v. State, 744 A.2d 465 (Del. 1999) (context for appellate review where counsel failed to object; capital-case distinction)
Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151 (Del. 1987) (appellate record obligations and need for transcripts to review claims)