Court Opinion

ID: 9552603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:13:50.515146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:21.256936
License: Public Domain

Utter, J.
(concurring) — I concur with the majority. However, I wish to emphasize that the corroborative evidence requirement, RCW 9A.44.120(2)(b), is satisfied by indirect evidence, as well as direct evidence, of the offending act.
In most child abuse cases, eyewitnesses and physical evidence are rare. Berliner, The Child Witness: The Progress and Emerging Limitations, 40 U. Miami L. Rev. 167, 171 (1985); Berliner & Barbieri, The Testimony of the Child Victim of Sexual Assault, 40:2 J. Soc. Issues 125, 127 (1984). This places a premium on the child victim's testimony which, in turn, can create traumatic pressures on that child. See Note, The Testimony of Child Victims in Sex Abuse Prosecutions: Two Legislative Innovations, 98 Harv. L. Rev. 806, 806-07 (1985). Therefore, to give effect to the statute, it must be read to also include evidence such as confessions and expert testimony on whether the victim's behavior is typical of children who have been sexually abused. See Note, 98 Harv. L. Rev. at 821. This hardly exhausts the kinds of evidence that will corroborate a child victim's testimony of abuse, but it does exemplify what a trial court may consider in that regard. See, e.g., Berliner, 40 U. Miami L. Rev. at 171-72. The conclusion of the majority may have left an impression I wish to dispel that only direct evidence could be corroborative.