Is a consistent statement admissible if it is offered after an implied charge has been made that the witness's testimony was recently fabricated?

consistent statement admissible if it is offered after an 'implied charge has been made that [the witness's] testimony at the hearing is recently fabricated . . . and the statement was made before the . . . motive for fabrication . . . is alleged to have arisen.' " (People v. Brents (2012) 53 Cal.4th 599, 615.) The exception thus has a "temporal" requirement. (Id. at p. 616.) That is, the prior consistent statement must be made before the existence of any one of the motives to lie. (People v. Noguera (1992) 4 Cal.4th 599, 628; People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 492.)