A child victim’s delay in reporting sexual abuse does not change their report’s credibility, the California Court of Appeal ruled April 15.
The ruling affirms the decision of a Riverside judge to allow a girl’s report of consistent sexual abuse by a family friend between 2006 and 2008.
The girl, who was 5 when the abuse began, and her sister, who was 4, were abused by a family friend who lived in their Palm Desert apartment. At trial, the sisters recounted multiple instances of penetrative sex that occurred even while their father was home.
The sexual abuse went undisclosed until 2016, when the girl told her high school friends. She was 21 years old by the time of trial in 2022.
The abuser, Manuel Dejesus Flores, was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison after being convicted of four felony counts of a lewd act with a child under the age of 14.
He appealed under the fresh complaint doctrine, arguing that the girl had disclosed the crimes too late for them to be taken seriously.
That doctrine, the Court of Appeal’s ruling explained, came from a 13th-century doctrine called hue and cry. The hue and cry doctrine required victims of rape and other violent crimes to immediately tell their community about it, otherwise their case could be thrown out.
Courts developed the fresh complaint doctrine in the 1800s, the ruling said, citing the landmark case People v. Brown.
“During that time, courts still prescribed to the faulty assumption that if a woman failed to report her assault, then the ‘only rational explanation’ was that the offense did not occur,” the ruling said.
Throughout the 1900s, a victim had to tell someone about the abuse soon after it occurred. Otherwise, the jury would be entitled to disbelieve the victim, the ruling said.
In the 1994 appellate case People v. Brown, the California Court of Appeal ruled that a disclosure of sexual abuse is not required to be made immediately.
The Flores ruling goes one step further by saying that the time of disclosure is often delayed with child victims due to the psychological effects of the abuse.
“Child victims in particular commonly are reluctant to report such incidents and delay in doing so, or fail to provide a full report. Frequently, the child victim is unaware of the wrongful nature of the conduct or that what has occurred is not ‘normal.’ The victim also often experiences feelings of confusion and guilt, the desire to forget the incident, and the fear of not being believed, and in many instances may remain silent as a result of intimidation by the abuser,” the ruling says.
The ruling said that the fresh complaint doctrine should be known as the prior disclosure doctrine.
Case information
Riverside Superior Judge Matthew Perantoni presided.
Mark Hart, under appointment, represented Flores.
Deputy Attorneys General Andrew Mestman and Arlene Sevidal represented the state
Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, Justice Martin Buchanan wrote the opinion, joined by Acting Presiding Justice Joan Irion and Justice Truc Do.
Case No. INF1801453
Appellate Case No. D083310
Read the ruling here.
