Commonwealth v. Hanino, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 489

Defendant was convicted of two counts of rape of a child and two counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen based on his daughter's disclosure in April 2003.
Victim was twelve, living in Marblehead with her father, Nancy (father’s girlfriend), and two brothers; Nancy reported to authorities and took the victim to police; the victim never recanted.
Nancy later married the defendant; they were legally separated by trial, though separation was reportedly a condition to retain custody of their children.
Prior to trial, the Commonwealth designated Nancy as the first complaint witness; Nancy had limited recall of the first complaint details, prompting impeachment of Nancy with statements from two police officers.
Defense theory was that the victim fabricated the abuse, influenced by Nancy and relatives; defense argued the victim recANTED to others and to her older brother.
The trial court applied the first complaint doctrine, and issues on appeal focus on its application and the propriety of certain impeachment and closing arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether first complaint evidence of the victim’s testimony was improperly admitted	Cohen argues improper admission under first complaint doctrine.	Cohen contends admission violated the doctrine and prejudiced defense.	No abuse of discretion; evidence served independent purposes and was probative.
Whether the police officers’ testimony impeaching Nancy was admissible	Prosecution contends admissible to impeach Nancy’s credibility.	Defense argues it functioned as additional complaint testimony.	Not undue prejudice; admissible for impeachment and credibility assessment.
Whether the prosecutor’s closing remarks were improper	Prosecutor cited pattern of testimony; some remarks objected to by defense.	Argument improperly suggested prejudice or witness coordination.	No substantial risk of miscarriage; remarks within bounds given context and instructions.

Commonwealth v. King, 445 Mass. 217 (Mass. 2005) (designates first complaint witness and outlines admissibility framework)
Commonwealth v. Hoyt, 461 Mass. 143 (Mass. 2011) (first complaint evidence admissibility with independent purpose)
Commonwealth v. Arana, 453 Mass. 214 (Mass. 2009) (limits on testimony about the details of the first complaint)
Commonwealth v. Monteiro, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 489 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009) (independent purposes for multiple complaint evidence)
Commonwealth v. Aviles, 461 Mass. 60 (Mass. 2011) (tests admissibility and scope of complaint testimony)
Commonwealth v. Murungu, 450 Mass. 441 (Mass. 2008) (first complaint witness substitution when bias/motive exists)
Commonwealth v. Stuckich, 450 Mass. 449 (Mass. 2008) (limitations on complainant testimony on direct examination)
Commonwealth v. Sineiro, 432 Mass. 735 (Mass. 2000) (impeachment use of prior statements against witness)
Commonwealth v. Ewing, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 531 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006) (prosecutor closing remarks and trial impact)
Commonwealth v. Haraldstad, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 565 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983) (cautions on implying counsel’s improper preparation)
Commonwealth v. Cavanaugh, 371 Mass. 46 (Mass. 1976) (legitimate limits on cross-examination and witness preparation)