Opinion ID: 2815842
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timing of the Complaint

Text: [¶28] We first address whether the report was inadmissible as first complaint evidence because the complaint was not made shortly after the event. The victim was a minor when he stayed with Fahnley. He and his mother each explained his reason for not wanting to speak about the events with his mother until he was an adult. Because a child may be fearful or susceptible to intimidation, or may feel pressure not to tell others about a sexual assault, a child’s first complaint may be admitted even if it was not made immediately after the event as long as the child had a reason for not making the complaint contemporaneously with the assault. See State v. Mulkern, 85 Me. 106, 107, 26 A. 1017 (Me. 1892); see also King, 834 N.E.2d at 1189-91. In the context of this case, and in the absence of an objection, the passage of time between the sexual under Rule 801(d)(1) or, if offered for its truth, as an exception to the hearsay rule, see M.R. Evid. 801(c), 802-804. 15 assault and the victim’s complaint to his mother does not render the mother’s testimony inadmissible under the first complaint rule. Instead, it was for the jury to consider the delay in determining the weight of the evidence to rebut the assumption that, without a complaint, nothing had happened. See Mulkern, 85 Me. at 107, 26 A. 1017; Krieger, 2002 ME 139, ¶ 18, 803 A.2d 1026.