Wyoming Supreme Court· 4/23/2019

Jones v. State

Citations

439 P.3d 753

How courts have described this case

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

stating the record does not show the State procured the CAP interviews of the victims \for the purpose of presenting them at trial to bolster the children's statements\
“[P]rior consistent statements offered in anticipation of an attack described in the rule should not be admitted.”
“Although similarly worded, we have consistently held that W.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B) does not require that prior consistent statements be made before the alleged improper motive arose.” (citations omitted)
“Even though the district court did not make a specific finding that the statements’ probative value outweighed their potential for unfair prejudice, careful consideration of the statements’ relevancy is implicit in the court’s analysis.”
“Questions related to conversations they had with others about what Mr. Jones had done, the photograph shown to A.B., and whether anyone had helped them prepare to testify impliedly charged ‘recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.’”
“A defense to crimes such as those at issue here will necessarily entail a defense theory that what the victim said happened did not happen. That alone does not open the door for admission of prior consistent statements.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Boomgaarden, Davis, Fox, Gray, Kautz

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.