In what circumstances will a jury be allowed to consider prior statements introduced by the prosecution for the purpose of rehabilitating a witness?

In People v. Washington, supra, 71 A.C 1105, 80 Cal.Rptr. 567, 458 P.2d 479, over defendant's objections, prior consistent statements were introduced by the prosecution for the purpose of rehabilitating a witness. The court held that in the absence of instructions expressly limiting the jury's use of the extrajudicial statements to rehabilitation, the admission of the statements constituted constitutional error. However, the court then held that the error was harmless:

'We are satisfied, however, that the error was harmless to defendant 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705; see People v. Johnson, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 660, (68 Cal.Rptr. 599, 441 P.2d 111)). The prior extrajudicial shatements of the witnesses were in form and substance substantially identical with the in-court testimony of the witnesses at the trial. The jury was obviously free to give [4 Cal.App.3d 607] the in-court testimony full substantive use if they believed it and defendant's conviction indicates that they did.' (P. 1122, 80 Cal.Rptr. p. 576, 458 P.2d p. 488) (Italics added.)

IV. Did the court err in not giving accomplice instructions? No.