People v. Rosario
17 NY3d 501, 958 N.E.2d 93 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The prompt outcry rule allows the admission of evidence that a victim of sexual assault promptly complained about the incident to corroborate the allegation, but does not permit further testimony as to the details of the incident. Promptness is a relative concept dependent on the facts of each case.
Facts:
- In Rosario, the complainant, a teenager, alleged prolonged sexual abuse by her father, culminating in a note written to her boyfriend detailing the abuse, which was not immediately reported to authorities.
- The abuse allegedly began when the complainant was about nine years old and continued until she was 14.
- The complainant wrote a note to her boyfriend in May 2004, about the time the abuse stopped, disclosing the abuse.
- The complainant reported the abuse to the police in June 2005, after an argument with her father about going to the movies with her boyfriend.
- In Parada, the complainant, a child, disclosed abuse by a babysitter to a cousin and later to an aunt, with some delays, before authorities were informed.
- The abuse allegedly occurred from mid-2002 until early 2004 when the complainant was six or seven years old.
- The complainant disclosed the abuse to her cousin while it was still ongoing, and later to her aunt in mid-May 2006.
- The complainant's mother reported the abuse to the police in late June 2006.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are prior consistent statements in the form of a note and verbal disclosures admissible under the prompt outcry rule or as a rebuttal to a claim of recent fabrication in cases of alleged sexual abuse?
Opinions:
Majority - Read, J. (J.)
Yes, but with limitations. In Rosario, the note was not admissible as a prompt outcry due to the significant delay between the alleged abuse and the writing of the note. The delay of perhaps as long as five months was too long for a teenage complainant. The note was also not admissible to rebut a claim of recent fabrication because the defense had not yet suggested a motive to fabricate at the time the note was introduced. The People cannot offer hearsay 'in anticipation of' a defense of recent fabrication. In Parada, the disclosure to the cousin was admissible as a prompt outcry because it occurred while the abuse was ongoing. However, the disclosure to the aunt was deemed a harmless error. The court emphasized that promptness is a relative concept dependent on the facts of each case. The court rejected the argument that disclosure to a child can never constitute a prompt outcry, seeing no reason to disallow prompt outcry testimony where a child victim discloses sexual abuse to a peer.
Dissent - Smith, J. (J.)
No. The dissent argues that the traditional limits of the prompt outcry rule are obsolete and advocates for a broader interpretation that would consider any pre-report disclosure about the crime admissible. Judge Smith contends that the critical question in these cases is whether the victims were telling the truth or lying, and it is unfair to conceal from the jury powerful evidence that shows they were telling the truth. He proposes adopting a broader version of the prompt outcry rule, permitting the jury to know of any disclosure made by the victim about the crime before it was reported to the authorities. The dissent also argues that in Rosario, the evidence was properly admissible under the recent fabrication exception to the hearsay rule, criticizing the majority for requiring an explicit claim of recent fabrication by the defense before such evidence can be introduced.
Concurrence - Smith, J. (J.)
Judge Smith concurs in the result in Parada but for different reasons than the majority. He argues that the evidence of the victim's disclosure to her aunt should have been admissible under his proposed broader prompt outcry rule. He contends that this evidence was powerful in demonstrating the victim's truthfulness and that there is no common sense reason why the jury should not have heard it.
Analysis:
This case highlights the evolving legal standards regarding the admissibility of prior consistent statements in sexual abuse cases. The majority's decision reflects a cautious approach to the expansion of exceptions to hearsay rules, while the dissent calls for a more flexible application that adapts to modern understandings of victim behavior in sexual assault cases. The court's ruling maintains the traditional boundaries of the prompt outcry rule while acknowledging that promptness is a relative concept. The decision also emphasizes the importance of timing in introducing evidence to rebut claims of recent fabrication, requiring that such claims be explicitly made before allowing rebuttal evidence.
