Defendant was charged by information with two counts of domestic battery.  For striking and choking his stepsister.  She was developmentally disabled. He opted for a jury trial.  The court allowed a case worker to testify about what the victim told him.    Defendant was convicted.    The defendant appealed. 

He argued that the admission of the case worker’s testimony about what the victim told the case worker was improperly admitted as an excited utterance.   Illinois Rule of Evidence 613(c) now prohibits admission of a prior consistent statement as substantive evidence under any hearsay exception.

Generally, a prior consistent statement of a witness is inadmissible for the purpose of corroborating the witness’s trial testimony.  That is so because it is likely to unfairly enhance the witness’s credibility solely because the statement has been repeated.

The Appellate Court disagreed with the defendant.  The admission of the victim’s testimony as to what she told others about the incident was not error. There was no prior consistent statement.   The victim’s credibility was not unfairly enhanced.

People v. Baker, 2019 IL App (2d) 160791 (February 13, 2019).