In State v. Orhan, 52 Conn. App. 231, 243, 726 A.2d 629 (1999), the Court held that "the controlling language from State v. Troupe does not limit the identifying information that may be provided. It limits only the extent of the information provided. Our Supreme Court merely gave examples of how a sexual assault might be identified; it did not hold that that was the only testimony that could be provided." In State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 677 A.2d 917 (1996) the Court held that "a person to whom a sexual assault victim has reported the assault may testify only with respect to the fact and timing of the victim's complaint; any testimony by the witness regarding the details surrounding the assault must be strictly limited to those necessary to associate the victim's complaint with the pending charge, including, for example, the time and place of the attack or the identity of the alleged perpetrator."