Commonwealth v. Snoke

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there is no requirement for the trial judge to instruct the jury as requested by either counsel if the issue is not in dispute or the law is not applicable to the case.
• stating that “[w]here no physical force is used to accomplish the reprehensible assault, a child victim would have no reason to promptly complain of the wrong-doing”
• suggesting that a five-year-old victim “would have had no reason to question her father”
• recognizing a complaint made promptly is more credible given the lack of time to fabricate a story, while, conversely, one made after substantial delay without reasonable explanation may place the complainant’s credibility in question
• finding the timing of a complaint of sexual abuse is a factor bearing upon the credibility of the witness
• stating, “where the actual occurrence of the [sexual] assault is at issue in the case, the trial judge is required to charge the jury as to the relevance of a delay in disclosure and the significance of a prompt complaint”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).