"Our review of the evidence is to determine `whether, based on that evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any trier of fact rationally could find beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged.'" State v. Graves, 609 A.2d 717, 719 (Me. 1992) (quoting State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me. 1985)). As we have previously held, "[c]orroboration beyond the testimony of the prosecutrix is not required under our law to prove the crime of rape."
When the prior consistent statement is offered to rebut an express or implied charge of improper influence or motive pursuant to the exception to the hearsay rule set forth in M.R.Evid. 801(d)(1), the proponent of the statement must demonstrate that the statement precedes the existence of the influence or motive. State v. Phillipo, 623 A.2d 1265, 1267 (Me. 1993); State v. Swain, 493 A.2d 1056, 1059 (Me. 1985); State v. Fredette, 462 A.2d 17, 22-23 (Me. 1983); State v. Graves, 609 A.2d 717, 718 (Me. 1992). In relevant part, M.R.Evid. 801(d)(1) provides that "[a] prior consistent statement by the declarant whether or not under oath, is admissible only to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive."