Commonwealth v. Licata

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “It is not difficult to understand a rape victim’s reluctance to discuss with others, particularly strangers, the uncomfortably specific details of a sexual attack”
• judge may well limit testimony which would incite a jury through a “needless rehearsal of the particulars of a gruesome crime”
• defendant entitled to have a hearing on his motion for new trial where his allegations, if true, raised serious issues as to the adequacy of his trial counsel's defense
• “prejudice is self-evident when [the victim’s] version of an incident is allowed to be repeated again and again,” as in effect occurred here with repeated direct and indirect references to the oral penetration allegation
• substantial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires hearing in the “interest of justice”
• “The trial judge should instruct the jury as the [fresh complaint] evidence is admitted and again during the jury instructions that fresh complaint testimony does not serve as substantive evidence that the crime in fact occurred”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).