In what circumstance can a prior consistent statement be admissible?

A prior consistent statement can be admissible primarily to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper motive. When a witness's credibility is challenged based on an assertion that their testimony is a recent invention or influenced by a motive to lie, introducing a prior consistent statement serves to reinforce the witness's reliability. This demonstrates that the witness's account has remained unchanged over time and supports the argument that their testimony is genuine and truthful rather than a concoction inspired by ulterior motives.

In the context of the other options, while establishing a pattern of behavior and supporting additional evidence may have relevance in other evidentiary contexts, they do not specifically address the need to counter accusations of recent fabrication or improper motive. Likewise, using a prior consistent statement to directly testify against a party does not align with the traditional rules of admissibility regarding prior consistent statements, which are primarily about maintaining credibility rather than serving as direct proof against another party.