Commonwealth v. Binienda

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• hearsay erroneously admitted as a prior consistent statement was prejudicial despite limiting instructions because of the inherent danger of jury misuse of the statements as substantive evidence
• where prior consistent statement of robbery victim recounting the incident “was made after and not before the alleged motive to falsify testimony came into existence” it was inadmissible and prejudicial [emphasis in original]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).