In what scenario is a consistent statement admissible for rehabilitation?

A consistent statement is admissible for rehabilitation primarily to rebut claims that suggest the witness had a motive to lie or that their testimony has been affected by recent events. In this context, option B highlights a situation where a witness's prior consistent statement can be used to counteract a claim that they are biased or have a recent motive to fabricate their testimony.

When a party attacks a witness's credibility by suggesting they may have a motive to alter their testimony, introducing a consistent statement helps to bolster the credibility of that witness by showing that their testimony aligns with their previous statements, thus indicating reliability and integrity. This is particularly important when the statement was made before any alleged motive arose, effectively undermining the notion of bias.

The other options do not present valid scenarios for the admissibility of a prior consistent statement in rehabilitation. For example, demonstrating a change of heart or needing one merely whenever desired by an attorney lacks the specific context of addressing credibility challenges. Lastly, the notion that a consistent statement can be introduced after a complete impeachment fails to recognize that the prior consistent statement must be used to counteract specific attacks on credibility, particularly those suggesting recent fabrication or bias.