Opinion ID: 1145330
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: teacher's statement identifying petitioner as offender

Text: At trial the victim's teacher testified as follows: Q. On February 8th, did you have occasion to have a discussion with [the victim]? A. Yes. Q. Where did that discussion take place? A. Outside my classroom in the hallway. Q. Very generally, what was the gist of that discussion? A. It concerned her father. Defense counsel objected to the reference made to petitioner and the trial judge overruled the objection. The prosecutor repeated the question and then the teacher testified that the conversation she had with the victim concerned some sexual advances. The general rule in this state is that in criminal trials for sex offenses the prosecution may present evidence that the victim complained to someone after the assault. State v. Goebel, 40 Wn.2d 18, 25, 240 P.2d 251 (1952). The rule admits only such evidence as will establish that the complaint was timely made. Excluded is evidence of the details of the complaint, including the identity of the offender and the nature of the act. State v. Murley, 35 Wn.2d 233, 237, 212 P.2d 801 (1949) and cases cited therein. Accordingly, the statement identifying the offender as the victim's father should not have been admitted. A counterpart to this rule is that the weight of the harm claimed to have been caused by reference to the alleged offender's identity may be too slight to constitute reversible error. State v. Conklin, 37 Wn.2d 389, 223 P.2d 1065 (1950). The court in Conklin held that a witness' testimony which referred to the offender's identity was not reversible error because [t]here is no risk here, then, of bolstering a disputed identification in admitting the evidence in question. There was never any dispute over the offender's identity. The issue was over what the appellant did or did not do. Conklin, at 391. [4] The rationale of Conklin applies in this case. Identity of the offender was never at issue. It was never contended that someone other than petitioner engaged in the acts complained of. There was no risk that the teacher's testimony would bolster a disputed identification. The issue in this case was what petitioner did or did not do. The teacher's inadvertent reference to petitioner does not constitute reversible error.