Concurrence & Dissent - State v. Adam P.

Summary

Justice Ecker concurs that the delayed-reporting jury instruction was erroneous and should be overruled, but dissents from the conclusion that the error was harmless. Ecker reasons that the instruction improperly removed a material credibility consideration from the jury in a case resting almost entirely on the complainants' uncorroborated testimony and would reverse the convictions for a new trial. Ecker also agrees that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony concerning the defendant's out-of-court statement.