Opinion ID: 1973913
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Detailed testimony

Text: Defendant also alleges that Ms. Foster's testimony was so detailed as to be inadmissible under the fresh-complaint rule. The purpose of the fresh-complaint rule is to prove only that the alleged victim complained, not to corroborate the victim's allegations concerning the crime. Detailed testimony is impermissible under the rule. Professor Wigmore states: The purpose of [fresh complaint] is to negative the supposed inconsistency of silence by showing that there was not silence. Thus, the gist of the evidential circumstances is merely non-silence, i.e., the fact of the complaint, but the fact only. That she complained of a rape, or an attempt at rape, is all that principle permits, the further terms of her utterance (except so far as to identify the time and place with that of the one charged) are not only immaterial for the purpose, but practically turn the statement into a hearing assertion, and as such it is inadmissible. [4 Wigmore, Evidence (Chadbourne, rev. 1972) § 1136 at 307.] New Jersey courts have adhered strictly and uniformly to the principle of disallowing excessive details. In State v. Balles, supra, 47 N.J. at 339, 221 A. 2d 1, the Court assured itself that the witness offering fresh-complaint testimony did not elaborate and could hardly have said less and still identified the nature of [the child's] complaint. Similarly, in State v. J.S., supra, 222 N.J. Super. at 254, 536 A. 2d 769, the court disapproved of details which were superfluous to identify the nature of [the child's] complaint. Defendant argues that Ms. Foster's testimony was overly detailed because it referred to the specific act of penetration and to the child's statement that Bethune had assaulted her many times. Defendant faced trial for only one specific incident of sexual abuse, and R.B. testified to being sexually assaulted only once. The details and statements that Bethune had repeatedly abused the child, given that no other evidence of that existed on the record, were highly prejudicial to defendant. On the other hand, Ms. Foster testified only to what she saw the child do and not to the truth of the child's statements. Moreover, Ms. Foster was vigorously cross-examined. Although Ms. Foster's testimony appears to be excessively detailed to qualify under the fresh-complaint rule, the detail would be permissible under the tender-years exception to the hearsay rule. Evid.R. 63(33).