Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Evidence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals Court weighs due-process challenge to "first complaint" rule in Sorrentino appeal
Summary
A three-judge appeals court panel heard arguments over whether the so-called "first complaint" doctrine—originating in Commonwealth v. King—violated an accused man's due-process and fair-trial rights when applied in his trial and whether evidence of acquitted conduct was improperly admitted.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court (Judges Desmond, Shin and Walsh) heard argument in Commonwealth v. Francisco Sorrentino over whether the trial court’s application of the "first complaint" doctrine deprived Sorrentino of due process. Appellant counsel Dorejay Demosse urged the panel to revisit the doctrine as applied in this case, saying modern social attitudes reported in recent years weaken the premise that sexual-assault complainants always make prompt complaints and contending that the doctrine, as applied, had a highly prejudicial, cumulative effect on the jury.
Demosse told the panel the record here lacked medical corroboration and that the Commonwealth introduced evidence—testimony about alleged strangulation and a photograph of a neck injury—that amounted to "acquitted conduct" and should have been excluded. "The first complaint rule was designed to address a societal tendency, at the cost of, at the risk of violating the defendant's right to fair trial and due process," he said.
The judges pressed whether the Appeals Court or the Supreme Judicial Court should revise or overrule Commonwealth v. King and whether the appellant sought case-specific "as-applied" relief rather than a wholesale overruling. "Are you on the right floor to be making that argument?" one judge asked, reflecting repeated judicial skepticism about changing a high court precedent from an intermediate bench.
Assistant District Attorney Hallie White defended the SJC’s articulation of the doctrine, arguing it struck a balance between countering a societal tendency to disbelieve victims and permitting relevant evidence to defendants. White said the first-complaint witness produced evidence that, in her view, actually aided the defense by revealing discrepancies and that the cases do not support a categorical exclusion of acquitted-conduct evidence.
The panel also questioned the parties on collateral-estoppel and double-jeopardy doctrines as applied to evidence of an acquitted act (alleged strangulation), with counsel disagreeing over whether introduction of the testimony and photograph was harmless or prejudicial. After argument and questions from the judges the matter was taken as submitted.
