See also: CHILDREN § 2(a)
SEXUAL  ASSAULT

The “fresh complaint” doctrine allows a sexual assault victim’s prompt complaint into evidence to corroborate the victim’s testimony at trial.{footnote}Aaron v. State, 139 So. 2d 309 (Ala. 1961), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 846 (1962); Greenway v. State, 626 P.2d 1060 (Alaska 1980); State v. Navarro, 367 P.2d 227 (Ariz. 1961); Gabbard v. State, 285 S.W.2d 515 (Ark. 1956); People v. Montague, 508 P.2d 388 (Colo. 1973); State v. Beliveau, 678 A.2d 924 (Conn. 1996) (referring to docrine as “the constancy of accusation doctrine”); State v. Brewer, 114 A. 604 (Del. 1921); Battle v. United States, 630 A.2d 211 (D.C. App. 1993); Lyles v. State, 412 So. 2d 458 (Fla. App. Ct. 1982); Epps v. State, 118 S.E.2d 574 (Ga.), cert. denied sub nom. Alford v. Georgia, 368 U.S. 849 (1961); State v. Hall, 397 P.2d 261 (Idaho 1964); People v. Lawler, 568 N.E.2d 895 (Ill. 1991); Woods v. State, 119 N.E.2d 558 (Ind. 1954); State v. Ladehoff, 122 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 1963); State v. Hoskinson, 96 P. 138 (Kan. 1908); Cook v. Commonwealth, 351 S.W.2d 187 (Ky. 1961); State v. Robertson, 89 La. Ann. 618 (1886); State v. Calor, 585 A.2d 1385 (Me. 1991); State v. Werner, 489 A.2d 1119 (Md. 1985); People v. Taylor, 239 N.W.2d 627 (Mich. App. Ct. 1976); Carr v. State, 208 So. 2d 886 (Miss. 1968); State v. Van Doren, 657 S.W.2d 708 (Mo. App. 1983); State v. Peres, 71 P. 162 (Mont. 1903); State v. Daniels, 388 N.W.2d 446 (Neb. 1986); State v. Campbell, 17 P. 620 (Nev. 1888); State v. Lynch, 45 A.2d 885 (N.H. 1946); State v. Hill, 578 A.2d 370 (N.J. 1990); State v. Baca, 242 P.2d 1002 (N.M. 1952); People v. McDaniel, 81 N.Y.2d 10, 611 N.E.2d 265, 595 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1993); State v. Freeman, 100 N.C. 429, 5 S.E. 921 (N.C. 1888); State v. Gebhard, 13 N.W.2d 290 (N.D. 1944); Roberts v. State, 194 P.2d 219 (Okla. Crim. 1948); State v. Campbell, 705 P.2d 694 (Ore. 1985); Commonwealth v. Green, 409 A.2d 371 (Pa. 1979); State v. Russo, 142 A. 543 (R.I. 1928); Simpkins v. State, 401 S.E.2d 142 (S.C. 1991); State v. Twyford, 186 N.W.2d 545 (S.D. 1971); State v. Kendricks, 891 S.W.2d 597, 601 (Tenn. 1994); Vera v. State, 709 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); State v. Martinez, 326 P.2d 102 (Utah 1958); State v. Willett, 62 A. 48 (Vt. 1905); Pepoon v. Commonwealth, 66 S.E.2d 854 (Va. 1951); State v. Ferguson, 667 P.2d 68 (Wash. 1983); State v. Golden, 336 S.E.2d 198 (W. Va. 1985); Hannon v. State, 36 N.W. 1 (Wis. 1888); Elliott v. State, 600 P.2d 1044 (Wyo. 1979).
See generally Graham, The Cry of Rape: The Prompt Complaint Doctrine and the Federal Rules of Evidence, 19 Willamette L. Rev. 489 (1983).
But see State v. Brigandi, 442 A.2d 927 (Conn. 1982) (untimely nature of complaints affects weight, not admissibility).
Contra People v. Brown, 8 Cal. 4th 746, 760, 883 P.2d 949, 35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 407 (1994) (abolishing rule, but holding that such evidence is admissible if it will "assist the jury in arriving at a more reliable determination as to whether the offense occurred.")
CHECK Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 38, & 115-12.{/footnote} Some states also permit testimony as to the details of the complaint.{footnote}State v. Troupe, 677 A.2d 917, 926 (Conn. 1996); Territory v. Schilling, 17 Haw. 249 (1906), overruled in part on other grounds, Territory v. Nishi, 24 Haw. 677 (1919), and Territory v. Silva, 27 Haw. 270 (1923); Commonwealth v. Licata, 591 N.E.2d 672 (Mass. 1992); State v. Blohm, 281 N.W.2d 651 (Minn. 1979); Johnson v. State, 17 Ohio 593 (1848).{/footnote} 

The rule originates with the common law requirement that an accusation of rape be corroborated by evidence of a victim’s immediate complaint.{footnote}State v. Troupe, 677 A.2d 917, 924 (Conn. 1996);
4 J. Wigmore, Evidence (4th Ed. 1972) § 1135, p. 298.
6 Wigmore, § 1760, at 240{/footnote}  While sometimes referred to as an exception to the hearsay rule, it has also been held that such complaints are not hearsay because they are being offered not for their truth, but only as affecting the credibility of the victim.{footnote}State v. Troupe, 677 A.2d 917, 923 (Conn. 1996).{/footnote}  While the federal rules contain no “fresh complaint” exception as such, complaints of sexual abuse made soon after the alleged abuse occurred may fall within the exceptions for prior consistent statements or excited utterances.

It has been held that the admission of these prior complaints does not violate the Confrontation Clause where the victim is testifying in court and available for cross-examination.{footnote}State v. Troupe, 677 A.2d 917, 923 (Conn. 1996).{/footnote}