Andrews, Judge.A jury found James Roy Ray guilty of rape and two counts of sexual battery. The trial court denied Ray’s motion for new trial, and he appeals, challenging several evidentiary rulings and asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Although we find no merit in many of Ray’s arguments, two of his claims require additional consideration below. Accordingly, we vacate the order denying his motion for new trial and remand for further proceedings. Viewed favorably to the jury’s verdict, the evidence shows that the victim, a mentally challenged adult, lived with her aunt and several cousins. Ray, who was also related to the victim, visited the home on occasion, and the family spent time at his house, as well. In December 2009, the victim disclosed to a family member that Ray had assaulted her. The victim’s aunt reported the disclosure to the police.During the ensuing investigation, the victim submitted to a forensic interview and described several instances of sexual abuse by Ray. The victim confirmed that abuse at trial, testifying that on various occasions Ray had inserted his “boy part” into her “girlie part,” touched her “girlie part” with his tongue and finger, placed a sex toy on her “girlie part,” and touched her breast with his tongue. She further testified that Ray never asked whether he could touch her, that she did not want to have sexual relations with him, and that the encounters made her feel dirty.1. Ray argues that the trial court erred in admitting a video recording of the victim’s December 29, 2009 forensic interview, which was played for the jury during the forensic interviewer’s testimony, after the victim had testified. Ray objected to the video’s admission, characterizing the evidence as hearsay that improperly bolstered the victim’s credibility. The trial court disagreed with this characterization, finding the video admissible as a prior consistent statement. On appeal, we review this determination for abuse of discretion. See Kidd v. State, 292 Ga. 259, 260-261 (2) (736 SE2d 377) (2013). OCGA § 24-6-613 (c) governs the admissibility of prior consistent statements. Pursuant to that provision:A prior consistent statement shall be admissible to rehabilitate a witness if the prior consistent statement logically rebuts an attack made on the witness’s credibility. A general attack on a witness’s credibility with evidence offered under Code Section 246608 or 246609 shall not permit rehabilitation under this subsection. If a prior consistent statement is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the witness of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, the prior consistent statement shall have been made before the alleged recent fabrication or improper influence or motive arose.
