Opinion ID: 1145330
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: victim's inability to recall specific dates

Text: The State's information charged petitioner with indecent liberties during a period of time intervening between September 1979 and February 1980. Prior to 1978 the family had lived outside the state of Washington. When the victim testified, she could not remember the exact dates on which her father had sexual contact with her. She could only generalize. Petitioner contends that all of the victim's testimony should be excluded since some of the events she testified about could have occurred outside the time frame charged and thus outside the state of Washington. He further contends that because she could not testify as to particular dates, some of the events which she testified about would be too remote and thus prejudicial. It is clear from the victim's testimony along with corroborating testimony of other witnesses that some sexual contact between the victim and petitioner occurred in the state of Washington and within the time frame charged. Much of the victim's testimony related to recent events. The victim specifically testified that incidents of sexual contact occurred while her mother was away at school in the evenings. Mrs. Ferguson testified that she was in school at Walla Walla during the time frame at issue. The victim was only 10 years old and emotionally disturbed. To require her to pinpoint the exact dates of the oft-repeated incidents of sexual contact would be contrary to reason. As a matter of fact, the testimony did establish one specific date. The victim testified that she reported one incident to her teacher the day after it occurred. The teacher then testified as to the exact date on which the victim reported the sexual abuse. The fact that some of the sexual contact may not have occurred within the specified time frame is not fatal to the victim's testimony. [8] As noted above, it is well established that additional acts of indecent liberties are relevant to prove lustful disposition toward the victim, State v. Golladay, supra ; State v. Leohner, supra , and the limits of time over which the evidence may range is within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Thorne, supra . The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the victim to testify even though she could not specify the exact dates of other occasions on which petitioner sexually abused her.