whatsoever for the purpose of child molestation or indecent acts.”); OCGA § 16-12-1 (b) (“A person commits the offense of contributing to the delinquency or dependency of a minor or causing a child to he a child in need of services when such person . . . [kjnowingly and willfully encourages, causes, abets, connives, or aids a minor in committing a delinquent act.. . .”). 3 Johnson v. State, 328 Ga. App. 702, 706 (2) (760 SE2d 682) (2014) (punctuation omitted); accord Duggan v. State, 285 Ga. 363, 366 (2) (677 SE2d 92) (2009). 4 Johnson, 328 Ga. App. at 706 (2) (punctuation omitted); accord Duggan, 285 Ga. at 366 (2). 5 Johnson, 328 Ga. App. at 706 (2) (punctuation omitted); accord Moon v. State, 288 Ga. 508, 511 (4) (705 SE2d 649) (2011). 6 See, e.g., Johnson, 328 Ga. App. at 706 (2) (<HOLDING>). 7 Id. (punctuation omitted); accord Baugh v.
holding that prior consistent statements are admissible under rule 801d1b only if offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive recognizing prior consistent statements are considered nonhearsay if the following conditions are met the person who made the prior consistent statement testifies at trial and is subject to crossexamination concerning that statement and the statement is offered to rebut an express or implied charge of improper influence motive or recent fabrication citing rodriguez v state 609 so2d 493 499 fla1992 holding witnesss prior consistent statement admissible in part because defense counsel implied during opening statement that witness had fabricated her testimony holding that trial court erred in allowing lawenforcement officers testimony as to victims prior consistent statement when there was no affirmative charge of recent fabrication and the state elicited the testimony during its direct examination of the witness holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony from two witnesses whose testimony was brief and consistent with the victims testimony did not constitute drumbeat repetition of the victims statements