People v. Brown
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GEORGE, J.
—Historically, under the common law fresh-complaint doctrine, evidence that the alleged victim of a sexual offense disclosed or reported the incident to another person shortly after its occurrence has been held admissible, as part of the prosecution’s case-in-chief, in a subsequent criminal prosecution for that offense. In California, the governing decisions have explained that the victim’s extrajudicial “complaint” is admissible for a limited, nonhearsay purpose—namely, simply to establish that such a complaint was made—in order to forestall the trier of fact from inferring…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- People v. McDanielNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- People v. BledsoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- People v. BurtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Commonwealth v. LicataMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
- People v. LawlerIllinois Supreme Court · 1991
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Commonwealth v. KingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2005
- Commonwealth v. DillonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- State v. TroupeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- People v. LoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Steward v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1995
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.