Prior Consistent Statements by the Complainant in a Sexual Abuse Case Were Not Admitted for the Truth of the Matter Asserted, But Rather Were Properly Admitted to Explain How the Investigative Process Began
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a concurrence disagreeing with majority's reasoning and a two-judge dissent, determined that prior consistent statements by the complainant in a sexual-abuse case were properly admitted. The Court of Appeals concluded the statements did not constitute bolstering, were not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted, and were admissible to show how the investigative process into complainant's allegations began:
In the challenged testimony, complainant's half-brother and mother did not recite any details of the sexual abuse to which complainant later testified in court indeed, they could not have done so because she supplied them with no information beyond a bare allegation. They did, however, describe complainant's appearance: according to her half-brother, complainant “hesitated” and, after telling him that she had performed oral sex, was reluctant to speak further; according to complainant's mother, when pushed by her half-brother to “tell mom what you just told me,” complainant stood mute with her fist in her mouth, causing her mother to think at first that she had injured her hand. Finally, the witnesses explained what actions complainant's disclosure prompted them to take: the half-brother pressed complainant to repeat the allegation to their mother, and, when she was unwilling, told their mother himself; complainant's mother immediately shared the allegation with a trusted sister of defendant's and a friend, which led to the investigation resulting in the charge against defendant.
New York courts have routinely recognized that “nonspecific testimony about [a] child-victim's reports of sexual abuse [do] not constitute improper bolstering [because] offered for the relevant, nonhearsay purpose of explaining the investigative process and completing the narrative of events leading to the defendant's arrest” … . Here, the objected-to testimony fulfilled these legitimate nonhearsay purposes. People v Ludwig, 2014 NY Slip Op 07201, CtApp 10-23-14
The Court of Appeals addressed the same issue and came to the same result in another case. People v Cullen, 2014 NY Slip Op 07202, CtApp 10-23-14