The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Rose’s opinion. The Court adds one additional point.
Defendant did not challenge the three-year delay between the child’s interview and the return of the original indictment. The Court has no way to assess the reason for the delay and does not suggest that the delay violated defendant’s rights. A lengthy delay in a future case, however, might prompt a legal challenge. As a result, it is incumbent on the State to act expeditiously as it investigates and prosecutes matters that rely heavily on a young child’s ability to recall events