☢ test - Í

287 Ga.App. 857, 652 S.E.2d 807 (September 17, 2007). Hackett v. State, 272 Ga.App. 196, 612 S.E.2d 54 (March 15, 2005). Under Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745, 334 S.E.2d 661 (1985), “‘[A] witness’s veracity is placed in issue so as to permit the introduction of a prior consistent statement only if affirmative charges of recent fabrication, improper influence, or improper motive are raised during cross-examination,’” quoting Woodard v. State, 269 Ga. 317, 319-321(2), 496 S.E.2d 896 (1998). Here, admission of victim’s written and verbal statements to police through officer’s testimony, prior to victim’s own testimony and attacks on her credibility, “runs the risk that the witness’s credibility is never attacked and that the evidence is subsequently rendered inadmissible [cit.],” but in this case, she did later testify and her credibility was attacked, so the evidence was admissible. Accord, Gibson v. State , 279 Ga.App. 838, 632 S.E.2d 740 (June 16, 2006) (witness’s statement to police admissible where her credibility attacked on cross-examination); Johnson (July 5, 2011), above. Jackson v. State, 271 Ga.App. 278, 609 S.E.2d 207 (January 18, 2005). Witness’s veracity was placed into issue sufficiently to allow testimony about his prior consistent statements: defense counsel asked witness “what he was getting in exchange for his trial testimony,” and discussed fact that he was awaiting sentencing on pending criminal charges, which would be affected by his testimony in this case. Note, testimony about prior statements was admitted before witness testified or his veracity was attacked. “‘[I]ntroducing such evidence prior to eliciting an in-court statement runs the risk that the witness’s credibility is never attacked and that the evidence is subsequently rendered inadmissible.’ Sterling v. State , 267 Ga. 209, 213(9), 477 S.E.2d 807 (1996).” Ogle v. State, 270 Ga.App. 248, 606 S.E.2d 303 (October 29, 2004). Trial court did not err in admitting essay written by victim, defendant’s step-daughter, who wrote a school paper about his sexual abuse and her attempts to hide it from her family. “[T]he essay directly rebutted the inferences raised by defense witnesses who testified as to the ‘normality’ of the victim’s relationship with Ogle; the victim’s essay explained that during the course of the abuse, she was living a lie by pretending to have a normal relationship with Ogle. Accordingly, the essay was admissible as rebuttal evidence. While Ogle claims that the essay was inadmissible as a ‘prior consistent statement’ pursuant to the holding in Woodard v. State, 269 Ga. 317, 496 S.E.2d 896 (1998), a victim’s testimony about her own prior statement escapes the hearsay proscription that concerned the Court in Woodard . [Cit.]” Johnson v. State, 268 Ga.App. 1, 601 S.E.2d 392 (June 17, 2004). Nurse’s testimony about rape victim’s statement to her was admissible as a prior consistent statement, as victim’s credibility was in issue at trial, and victim was “present at trial, under oath, and subject to cross-examination.” See Cuzzort v. State , 254 Ga. 745, 334 S.E.2d 661 (1985). Easley v. State, 266 Ga.App. 902, 598 S.E.2d 554 (April 9, 2004). “Easley charges the trial court with error in allowing the state to introduce an audio-taped pretrial statement of [victim] to the police that was consistent with her trial testimony. ‘[Easley’s] claim to the contrary notwithstanding, [defense counsel’s] cross- examination of the victim shows that [s]he challenged her testimony on direct as inconsistent with what she told police ... in earlier interviews and as colored by the degree to which she had been intoxicated while at [Pope’s house.] In doing so, [Easley], in effect, challenged the victim’s trial testimony as recently fabricated. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting the victim’s prior consistent statement. [Cits .]’ Dorsey v. State, 252 Ga.App. 33, 34(1) (555 S.E.2d 498) (2001).” Pope v. State, 266 Ga.App. 658, 598 S.E.2d 48 (March 30, 2004). Witness’s veracity was sufficiently challenged by defense questioning “her about the benefits of her negotiated plea with the prosecution and whether her trial testimony was consistent with her statement to the authorities after her arrest,” thus allowing State to present evidence of her prior consistent statement. Accord, Thom v. State , 268 Ga.App. 207, 601 S.E.2d 741 (June 30, 2004). Pope v. State, 266 Ga.App. 602, 597 S.E.2d 632 (March 26, 2004). Witness’s veracity was not put in issue where “one of the victims testified that the witness had been molested, and the witness denied that she had been molested.” “‘[A] witness’s veracity is placed in issue so as to permit the introduction of a prior consistent statement only if affirmative charges of recent fabrication, improper influence, or improper motive are raised during cross-examination.’ [Cit.]” Accord, Thompson v. State , 281 Ga.App. 627, 636 S.E.2d 779 (September 20, 2006). Shields v. State, 264 Ga.App. 232, 590 S.E.2d 217 (November 19, 2003). “‘A witness’s prior consistent statement is admissible only where (1) the veracity of a witness’s trial testimony has been placed in issue at trial; (2) the witness is present at trial; and (3) the witness is available for cross-examination,’” quoting Baugh v. State, 276 Ga. 736, 738 (2), 585 S.E.2d 616 (2003).