Pretty, an eight-year-old girl, was on an errand with her friend Violet, a seven-year-old girl. Along the way the inebriated defendant, Manroe, grabbed both girls, stuffed their mouths with cotton, and had sexual intercourse with both of them against their will. After he completed these acts, he threatened to kill them if they told anyone what transpired. Four days after the crime, Pretty’s mother noticed that Pretty was walking rather awkwardly, and upon inspection, discovered cuts on Pretty’s private parts. Her mother then filed a report at the police station and took Pretty to a hospital, where a doctor issued a medical report. The trial court, concerned with the reliability of the testimony of Pretty, a child of tender years, conducted a voire dire and determined that she was not capable of understanding the purpose of taking the oath. Therefore, the court required corroborating evidence of the rape to be presented. The trial court found that Manroe had been properly identified and that the medical report corroborated the rape, and accordingly, convicted Manroe of defilement. On appeal, Manroe argued, inter alia, that the medical evidence was insufficient because the crime was reported late and there was no date stamp on the medical report. The High Court noted that corroborating evidence need not be corroboration in the strict sense of the law, but needed to be “something more” than the victim’s testimony. Despite Pretty’s examination occurring four days after the crime, the High Court found that the medical report, having been issued by a licensed medical professional, properly corroborated the crime and therefore, upheld Manroe’s conviction.