Opinion ID: 1282363
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the problem in general

Text: The problem facing society and the courts in this whole area has been well articulated by one commentator as follows: The incidence of sexual abuse of young children has increased dramatically in recent years. The crimes committed are predominantly nonviolent in nature and most always occur in secrecy, with the child usually being the only witness. No particular age group is immune to sexual abuse, nor are the offenders confined to any particular class of persons. Indeed, more often than not, the offender is a parent, relative, or an acquaintance of the child. Detecting sex abuse, as well as convicting its perpetrators, is exceptionally difficult, due to the lack of witnesses and corroborative physical evidence, and to the reluctance or inability of the victim to testify against the defendant. Even when the child does appear in court and testifies, he or she is often met with skepticism and disbelief. Consequently, to establish the guilt of the defendant, many prosecutors have tried to introduce the out-of-court statements of the victim into evidence through the testimony of witnesses who heard the statements. Since the hearsay rule generally prohibits the introduction of these statements, an exception to the rule is often sought. Courts have used a variety of approaches in determining whether an exception should apply.[ [1] ] (Footnotes omitted.) And further: Physical corroboration is rare, for the crimes committed are predominantly nonviolent in nature. Most crimes consist of petting, exhibitionism, fondling, and oral copulation, activities that do not involve forceful physical contact. The lack of physical corroboration can also be attributed to the fact that most children, for a variety of reasons, do not resist their attackers and succumb easily. In addition, witnesses other than the victim and perpetrator are rare; people simply do not molest children in front of others. Most often, the offender is a relative or close acquaintance of the child who is likely to have many opportunities to be alone with the child.[ [2] ] (Footnotes omitted.) Although the foregoing was written from the standpoint of criminal sanctions against the offender, and in a dependency case such as this one the focus is on protection of the child, [3] the social and evidentiary problems faced are much the same. As will be discussed, the judicial response to this problem is found in the Rules of Evidence, which are a codification of this state's evidentiary rules. We adopted these rules in 1980 following extensive study by the State Bar Association's Evidence Task Force and the State Judicial Council. [4] The rules apply to juvenile court fact-finding hearings. [5] The legislative response has been more recent and more specific; a number of pertinent statutes designed to help come to grips with this serious problem were enacted after the trial and appeal of this case. [6] Four principal issues are here presented.