Inconsistencies in a child complainant's evidence about peripheral details such as timing, sequence of events, and location are explicable by the child's young age and delay between events and evidence, and do not necessarily require the jury to doubt the complainant's substantially consistent evidence about the core conduct charged. Acquittals on related counts are not inconsistent with a conviction where rational explanations exist for each acquittal, such as the absence of corroboration or the existence of contradictory preliminary complaint evidence specific to those counts.
The full text is available to signed-in members.