State v. Yusef
State v. Yusef, 2025 UT App 189 (Christiansen Forster, J.)
Criminal
The Utah Court of Appeals held:
- The district court abused its discretion in admitting a video as a prior consistent statement and in ruling that Defendant’s motion to exclude the video was untimely.
- The error was harmful because the evidence of Defendant’s guilty was “inconclusive at best.”
- Practice tip: If a district court considers and rules on the merits of an untimely motion, the court cannot then deny the motion as untimely.
- Practice tip: Evidence may not be admitted as a prior consistent statement if the defendant has not made a claim of recent fabrication or improper influence over the declarant.