Can Utah courts admit entire victim interviews as prior consistent statements? State v. Plazola Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed critical evidentiary issues in State v. Plazola, establishing important limits on when and how prior consistent statements may be admitted in criminal cases.

Background and Facts

Plazola faced charges for sexual abuse of a child based on allegations from two sisters who reported inappropriate touching during church activities. The State initially charged four counts but dismissed one count related to a “chalkboard incident” after the victim testified at the preliminary hearing that she could not remember where Plazola touched her. At trial, however, the same victim provided more detailed testimony about the dismissed incident, prompting defense counsel to highlight the inconsistency during cross-examination.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two evidentiary challenges: (1) whether the trial court properly admitted evidence of the dismissed chalkboard incident under rule 404(c) as evidence of other acts of child molestation, and (2) whether the court erred in admitting the entire forty-minute video of the victim’s Children’s Justice Center interview under rule 801(d)(1)(B) as a prior consistent statement.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court found any error regarding the chalkboard incident evidence to be harmless because the victim ultimately testified at trial about the specific touching alleged. However, the court ruled that admitting the entire CJC interview constituted plain error. The court emphasized that rule 801(d)(1)(B) permits admission of prior consistent statements only to “rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated” the testimony. Defense counsel’s opening statement suggesting the victim’s testimony “couldn’t happen” did not constitute a charge of recent fabrication warranting admission of the interview. While defense counsel’s cross-examination about inconsistent preliminary hearing testimony did create grounds for limited admission, the court erred by allowing the entire forty-minute interview rather than only those portions addressing the chalkboard incident.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that prior consistent statements under rule 801(d)(1)(B) must be narrowly tailored to address specific fabrication charges. Courts cannot admit entire recorded interviews when only portions directly rebut the alleged recent fabrication. The ruling also highlights the importance of trial courts reviewing video evidence before admission to ensure compliance with evidentiary rules. For practitioners, the case demonstrates that mixed verdicts—here, conviction on one charge but acquittal on a similar charge where no video was admitted—can support findings of harmful error.