The influence of a possibly designing mother over such a child is so great tending to a fabricated story that the legal rights of the defendant ought to be strictly guarded. * * *" State v. Whitman, 72 Or. 415, 421, 143 P. 1121 (1914). The last word from the Oregon Supreme Court on the "complaint of sexual misconduct" exception to the hearsay rule appears in State v. Haworth, 143 Or. 495, 21 P.2d 1091 (1933). This court in Haworth departed from the prior rationale expressed in State v. Whitman, supra, as to declarations by victims under the age of consent.

"* * * The statement of the decedent that he was robbed, which was admitted as a part of the res gestae, was proof tending to show that fact. * * *" And in prosecutions for rape the state may show that shortly after the alleged act the woman made complaint: State v. Tom, 8 Or. 177; State v. Sargent, 32 Or. 110, 49 P. 889; State v. Matson, 120 Or. 666, 253 P. 527; and State v. Haworth, 143 Or. 495, 21 P.2d 1091. The Matson decision says:

The mother, the grandmother and the police officer could have testified that the victim told them about the incident and they could have briefly described the nature of the victim's statement, "even though it involves to some extent the particulars thereof." State v. Campbell, supra, 299 Or at 646, quoting State v. Haworth, 143 Or. 495, 497-98, 21 P.2d 1091 (1933). Thus, defendant's only legitimate objection can be that the witnesses included the victim's identification of defendant as being the person who committed the sexual misconduct.

In State v. Campbell, supra, 299 Or at 646-47, the court concluded that evidence admitted under OEC 803(18a) that the victim made a complaint of sexual misconduct was sufficient evidence under ORS 136.425(1) to corroborate a confession concerning that misconduct. It interpreted OEC 803(18a) as allowing admission of enough of the victim's declaration " 'to show the nature of the complaint, even though it involves to some extent the particulars thereof.' " 299 Or at 646, quoting State v. Haworth, 143 Or. 495, 497-98, 21 P.2d 1091 (1933). It then stated:

44 Am Jur 953, 954, Rape § 84. State v. Yielding, 238 Or. 419, 395 P.2d 172 (1964); State v. Haworth, 143 Or. 495, 21 P.2d 1091 (1933); State v. Matson, 120 Or. 666, 253 P. 527 (1927); State v. Whitman, 72 Or. 415, 143 P. 1121 (1914); State v. Ogden, 39 Or. 195, 65 P. 449 (1901); State v. Birchard, 35 Or. 484, 59 P. 468 (1899). There is little guidance in the cases to determine exactly what constitutes permissible testimony that a complaint was made as distinguished from impermissible testimony as to the details of the complaint, other than the clearly established rule that the witness cannot state the identity of the alleged assailant.