Commonwealth v. Murungu
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtCowin, J.
In Commonwealth v. King, 445 Mass. 217 (2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1216 (2006), we modified our “fresh complaint” doctrine to one of “first complaint.” We, and many other courts in the United States, had adopted the fresh complaint doctrine because of the belief that failure of a rape victim to make a prompt complaint of a sexual assault was similar to an inconsistent statement that contrasted with the complainant’s trial testimony about the rape. Id. at 229, citing Commonwealth v. Lavalley, 410 Mass. 641, 646-647 n.7 (1991). Consequently, this fresh complaint doctrine permitted the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Commonwealth v. FlebotteMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
- Commonwealth v. PeruzziMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1983
- Commonwealth v. KingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2005
- Commonwealth v. LavalleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Commonwealth v. Quincy Q.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Commonwealth v. AranaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2009
- Commonwealth v. McCoyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2010
- Commonwealth v. AvilesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2011
- Commonwealth v. KebreauMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2009
- Commonwealth v. HartnettMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2008
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.