Cited by

To be admissible under rule 801(d)(1)(B), a witness’s “trial testimony and the prior statement need not be verbatim,” Bakken, d at 109, so long as they are “reasonably consistent,”

(holding that the admission of a videotaped statement that was “reasonably consistent” with trial testimony was not reversible error).

See, (affirming decision to admit forensic interview of child sexual-abuse victim where the requirements of rule 801(d)(1)(B) were satisfied and any discrepancy between the victim’s trial testimony and interview “was not substantial”); (concluding that forensic interview of child sexual-abuse victim was not erroneously admitted under rule 801(d)(1)(B)).

To be admissible under rule 801(d)(1)(B), a witness’s “trial testimony and the prior statement need not be verbatim,” Bakken, d at 109, so long as they are “reasonably consistent.”

(holding that a videotaped interview was admissible even though statements made therein were more detailed than the declarant-witness’s trial testimony).

The trial testimony “need not be verbatim” or exact in every detail, id., as long as it is “reasonably consistent” with the prior statement

and admission of a videotaped stateme nt that is ‘reasonably consistent’ with the trial testimony is not reversible error.” ().

( holding videotaped statement “reasonably consistent” with witness’s trial testimony admissible under Minn. R. Evid.

24, 2000); (videotaped statement that was “reasonably consistent” with witness’s trial testimony admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B)).

d 71, 75–76 (Minn. App. 1998).

Prior to admission “‘the witness’[s] credibility must have been challenged, and the statement must bolster the witness’[s] credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’[s] credibility that was challenged.’” ().

(stating that the admission of reasonable consistent statements does not constitute reversible error).

The trial testimony and the prior statement need not be identical to be consistent, id., and admission of a videotaped statement that is “reasonably consistent” with the trial testimony is not reversible error

Apr.13, 1999) (“minor discrepancies” did not prevent videotaped statement from being consistent with trial testimony); (videotaped statement that was “reasonably consistent” with witness’s trial testimony admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B)).