Legal Opinion

People v. Brown

California Supreme Court

Decided November 17, 1994No. S034554PublishedCited by 66 opinions

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

  1. People v. McDanielNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. People v. BledsoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
  3. People v. BurtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Commonwealth v. LicataMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
  5. People v. LawlerIllinois Supreme Court · 1991

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by66 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. KingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2005
  2. Commonwealth v. DillonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  3. State v. TroupeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
  4. People v. LoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Steward v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1995

61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API