Haughton v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that child’s video statement to CPS made after the alleged motive to fabricate arose did not rebut allegation of improper influence or motive, and was therefore not admissible as a prior consistent statement under Rule 801(e)(1)(B)
• finding video statement not admissible as prior consistent statement because alleged motive for fabrication arose prior to video statement
• finding video statement not admissible as prior consistent statement because alleged motive for fabrication arose prior to video statement
• finding video statement not admissible as prior consistent statement because alleged motive for fabrication arose prior to video statement
• finding video statement not admissible as prior consistent statement because alleged motive for fabrication arose prior to video statement
• videotaped statements not admissible under Rule 801(e)(1)(B) because alleged motive to fabricate arose before the statements were recorded

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).