NCJ Number
113123
Journal
Brooklyn Law Review Volume: 52 Issue: 4 Dated: (Winter 1988) Pages: 1087-1115
Date Published
1988
Length
23 pages
Annotation
Historically, the prompt-complaint doctrine was premised on the belief that a rape victim would notify a third party at the earliest opportunity. Failure to complain promptly undermined the credibility of the victim's testimony at trial.
Abstract
In New York, the application of this doctrine evolved into a presumption that juries may infer that a rape allegation made in the courtroom is a recent fabrication unless proved otherwise. Consequently, New York courts permit the prosecution to introduce evidence of a prior complaint to rebut the presumption of fabrication and bolster the complainant's credibility. The defense, in turn, may request an instruction that asks the jury to consider any delay in a third party complaint in assessing witness credibility. The prompt-complaint doctrine has no parallel in the prosecution of other criminal offenses and is founded upon a distrust of rape complainants and a fear of false allegations. Even in the wake of State and national rape law form, this outdated exception to the rule against prior consistent statements has managed to survive. The doctrine prejudices both criminal defendants and rape victims, while perpetuating gender bias. An amendment to New York criminal procedure law is proposed that would permit three methods for admitting rape complaint evidence: through narrative testimony, testimony for rehabilitation of a witness, and under the spontaneous utterance exception. All of these are consistent with accepted rules of evidence and the goals of rape law reform. 153 footnotes.