The appeals panel heard argument in an appeal from a conviction for sexual offenses, focusing on whether testimony that a child victim had told both a babysitter and the child's mother about an alleged incident improperly bolstered the victim and created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Appellant counsel Robert O'Mara told the court the Commonwealth conceded there was an error when the victim testified she had told Maria Pardo (the babysitter) and then her mother about an incident on Sept. 23. O'Mara argued that although the defense cross‑examined on that point, the repeated references to multiple complaint witnesses and the prosecution's reliance on that testimony in closing could have influenced the jury in a case that he described as a close credibility contest.

Assistant District Attorney Matt Patilano, for the Commonwealth, acknowledged the prosecutor had erred in admitting that testimony but called the error “technical” on the record. Patilano argued defense counsel’s strategy made use of the testimony to challenge the mother's credibility, and that the defense elicited similar testimony on cross‑examination and highlighted it in closing argument. He urged the panel to conclude the error did not cause a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Why it matters: The appeal addresses the application of the “first complaint” rule (often called the Kingston/King doctrine in Massachusetts jurisprudence) that limits the use of multiple out‑of‑court statements about the same allegation in child abuse trials because such repetitions can improperly bolster a complainant’s credibility. Appellate guidance will clarify how courts should weigh tactical waiver and prejudice in similar fact patterns.

Key points from argument
- Nature of error: The contested testimony was the victim’s statement that she had told both the babysitter and her mother; counsel and the Commonwealth agreed that admitting that multiple‑complaint testimony can be error under controlling cases.
- Defense strategy: O'Mara said defense counsel used cross‑examination and closing argument to emphasize that the mother knew of the allegations contemporaneously and questioned why she had not told police, arguing that use of the multiple complaints assisted the defense credibility attack in a case with no scientific evidence and the defendant testifying.
- Commonwealth response: ADA Patilano said the defense elicited the relevant testimony on cross and relied on it in closing; because the defense strategy both introduced and used the testimony, the Commonwealth argued any error was unlikely to have caused a miscarriage of justice.

Quotations (verbatim)
"It was the former, your honor, that the, on direct, the victim testified that she told Maria Pardo and then that she also told her mother," counsel for the appellant said, describing the basis of the concession.
"This is about as technical an error as you can get on this record," ADA Matt Patilano told the panel, arguing the defense strategy mitigated any prejudice.

Court status and next steps
Counsel finished argument and the case was submitted to the panel for decision.

Speakers (from the argument record)
- Robert O'Mara — Appellant's counsel (private counsel)
- ADA Matt Patilano — Assistant District Attorney (government)
- Presiding justice and panel members — bench (government)

Authorities and doctrine referenced
- King/first complaint doctrine (Mass. decisional law)
- Rivera and Cabaro — cases referenced in argument regarding the doctrine and prejudice analysis

Searchable tags: child abuse, evidence, first complaint, King doctrine, appeals