What is one limitation on the use of prior consistent statements in Ohio?

In Ohio, one significant limitation on the use of prior consistent statements is that they cannot be used solely to rehabilitate a witness who has been impeached. This means that if a witness has been discredited or challenged on their credibility, simply introducing a prior consistent statement does not serve as sufficient evidence to restore that witness's credibility if it was introduced only for that purpose. The law recognizes that prior consistent statements have limited relevance and should not be admitted to merely bolster an already impeached witness without an appropriate context that connects the prior statement to the case at hand.

This limitation underscores an important principle in evidentiary law, which is focused on the reliability and relevance of evidence presented in court. In other contexts, prior consistent statements can be admissible, particularly if offered to demonstrate consistency in a story that has been unchanged over time, which may provide context or support for the witness's testimony if they were made before the alleged bias or motive to fabricate arose.