Court Opinion

ID: 9779662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:31:45.195876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:37.437295
License: Public Domain

Marshall, CJ.
(concurring, with whom Botsford and Gants, JJ., join). I agree that the result in this case is consistent with our decision in Commonwealth v. King, 445 Mass. 217 (2005), cert, denied, 546 U.S. 1216 (2006), but write separately to reiterate my concern that the first complaint doctrine is not necessary to address the issues set forth in that case. See Commonwealth v. McCoy, 456 Mass. 838, 855 (2010) (Marshall, *406C.J., concurring). This case is another example that, in the absence of the first complaint doctrine, there are a “myriad of ways of admitting potentially powerful evidence that ‘includes, or implies, the fact that a report was made,’ . . . which can counterbalance juror stereotypes.” Id. at 856 (Marshall, C.J., concurring), quoting Commonwealth v. Arana, 453 Mass. 214, 224 (2009). I would revisit the doctrine when a case arises that presents the issue squarely, when the parties have fully briefed the issue, and when the court has had an opportunity to request briefing from amicus curiae.