Stuart O'Connell Criminal Law Blog

As a general rule, prior consistent statements of a witness are inadmissible.  There are two primary justifications for the exclusion of such statements: first, they lack probative value ( they are self-serving, easily fabricated, and redundant) and second, they constitute hearsay when adduced for the truth of their contents.                 R. v. Dinardo , 2008 SCC 24 (CanLII) at para. 36.  Further, their repetition before the trier of fact is capable of working significant prejudice. See R. v. M.P., 2018 ONCA 608 , at para. 77. Exceptions to the rule Like other admissibility rules which are primarily exclusionary in their effect, the general rule enjoining introduction of prior consistent statements of a witness brooks exception. These exceptions permit introduction of prior consistent statements for restricted purposes which differ depending on the exception, for instance: 1 . T...

Prior consistent statements are declarations made by witnesses before they take the stand that are consistent with the testimony they give while on the stand. David M. Paciocco, " The Perils and Potential of Prior Consistent Statements: Let's Get It Right " (2013) 17 Can. Crim. L.R. 181, at p. 181. Prior consistent statements are generally inadmissible. Traditionally, they have been treated as inadmissible because they are out-of-court statements made in the absence of trial safeguards such as cross-examination and the taking of an oath or affirmation to tell the truth. The hearsay rule precludes the admission of prior consistent statements for the truth of their contents. Additionally, prior consistent statements lack probative value. See R. v. Stirling , 2008 SCC 10 (CanLI) , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 10 , at para. 5 ; R. v. Dinardo , 2008 SCC 24 (CanLII), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788 , at para. 36 .  Put differently, repetition of a statement by the same person does...