Commonwealth v. King

Joseph King appeals from his convictions for forcible rape of a child, arguing that he was prejudiced by improperly admitted fresh complaint testimony and that he was entitled to a mistrial due to the prejudicial impact of certain other testimony. We affirm the judgments.

1. Facts and procedural history. A jury could have found the following facts. The defendant, a longtime friend of the victim’s *493parents, moved into the basement of their home in March of 1999. At the request of the parents, the defendant babysat for the victim, Nathan,1 then six years old, and his two sisters on a number of…