What is the test for admitting a sexual assault charge if the victim does not make a prompt complaint?

Appellant argues that the victim's complaint must be fresh, i.e., made immediately after the victim was molested. That is not the law. In People v. Brown, supra, 8 Cal.4th 746, the court recognized that the historic rationale for the doctrine that it was "natural" for a victim of sexual abuse to promptly disclose the abuse to others has been largely discredited. (Id. at p. 759.) The "freshness" of the complaint is not a prerequisite to its admission. (Id. at p. 750.) "[W]hen the victim of an alleged sexual offense did not make a prompt complaint but instead disclosed the alleged incident only some time later, evidence of the fact and circumstances surrounding the delayed complaint also may be relevant to the jury's evaluation of the likelihood that the offense did or did not occur . . . . Admission of evidence of the circumstances surrounding a delayed complaint, including those that might shed light upon the reason for the delay, will reduce the risk that the jury, perhaps influenced by outmoded myths regarding the 'usual' or 'natural' response of victims of sexual

Page 6

offenses, will arrive at an erroneous conclusion with regard to whether the offense occurred. [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 761-762.)