OPINION
Appellant was convicted of kidnapping and sexual assault. During the trial two pоlice matrons were allowed to testify in great detail concerning what the victim told them about the incident after its occurrence.
“Such testimony is hearsay, and was inadmissible in evidence except in her [the victim’s] cross-examination, or аs confirmatory of her story if attacked.” State v. Campbell,
The testimony was admitted by the trial court under the “res gestae” exception to the hearsay rule; however the testimony clearly was not admissible under any exception commonly characterized by this label.
The prosecutrix made the statement to the matrons at least two hours after the conclusion of the inсident. In the interim she had talked to several people from whom she had sought
*301
hеlp, as well as detectives at the Sparks Police Department. The deсlarations pertained to “a past and completed occurrenсe” and “could in no way be considered contemporaneous with the attack.”
See
State v. Urbauer,
The state now argues, however, that the testimony was admissible as non-hearsay under Campbell, supra, and NRS 51.035, 1 because its function was confirmatory and it was offered to rеbut charges of recent fabrication or improper motive implied in defense cross-examination.
The principal “attack” or “charge against” thе victim which might call for the type of claimed rebuttal offered by the police matrons is stated in the state’s brief as being “[d]efense counsel’s inferences that [thе victim] concocted the sordid kidnapping and sexual assault story ...” and “that the only reason she was following through with her complaint was to avoid possible humiliatiоn to her reputation for losing her car to a drunken Indian.”
In a case interprеting statutory language identical to NRS 51.035, the Ninth Circuit approved the admission of corroborative testimony introduced for the purpose of rehabilitation but notеd that “prior consistent statements are admissible
where it affirmatively appеars that the prior consistent state-
,
ment was made at a time when the declarant had no motive to
fabricate.” U.S. v. Rodriguez,
There can be no doubt that defense counsel was attacking the motives of the victim, implying that she consented to the rеlationship and was later abandoned in the desert when the appellant took her car. Afterwards, motivated by embarrassment or revenge or both, she decided, the defense suggests, to make charges of kidnapping and sexual assault.
If suсh were the victim’s motive, it is very likely that it was *302 formed at the scene and before hеr interview with the police matrons; thus it is difficult to say that the consistent and corrobоratory statements to the police were made at a time when the victim had no motive to fabricate.
Moreover, it certainly cannot be said per Rodriguez, above, that it “affirmatively appears” from this rеcord that statements to the police were made at a time when the viсtim did not have the suggested motive to fabricate. It would appear to the contrary.
Absent an affirmative showing that the charged improper motive did not exist at the time the statements were made to the matrons, their detailed testimony should have been excluded. George v. State,
We find it difficult to view this inadmissible testimony as other than prejudicial in this case. Appеllant was grossly intoxicated. He neither admitted nor denied the criminal charges made against him. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on the credibility of thе victim-prosecutrix.
The inadmissible testimony of the police matrons, highlighted by the prоsecutor in closing argument, resulted in an improper and prejudicial advantage to the state in this case. We therefore reverse the judgment of conviction.
Notes
NRS 51.035(2)(b) provides in pertinent part:
“Hearsay” means a statement offered in evidence to prove thе truth of the matter asserted unless:
2. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is:
(b) Consistent with his testimony and offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive;