This short time frame and the highly emotional state of K.H. qualifies the tape as a spontaneous declaration. See People v. Quinlan (1980), 85 Ill. App.3d 1079, 1084, 407 N.E.2d 935, 939-40; People v. Hayn (1976), 34 Ill. App.3d 1029, 1035, 341 N.E.2d 182, 187. • 18 Defendant next complains the court erred by allowing Nurse McCain to testify to K.H.'s statements to her concerning the assaults, which McCain recorded in the hospital report.
( Joynt v. Barnes (1979), 71 Ill. App.3d 187, 388 N.E.2d 1298; People v. Twitty (1975), 25 Ill. App.3d 1065, 324 N.E.2d 222.) Relevancy is established where the fact offered tends to prove a disputed fact or render the matter in issue more or less probable in light of logic experience and accepted assumptions of human behavior. ( People v. Monroe (1977), 66 Ill.2d 317, 362 N.E.2d 295; People v. Quinlan (1980), 85 Ill. App.3d 1079, 407 N.E.2d 935.) The trial court is given a wide scope of discretion in ruling on issues of materiality.
( People v. Johnson (1979), 74 Ill. App.3d 1037, 393 N.E.2d 40; People v. Rush (1978), 65 Ill. App.3d 596, 382 N.E.2d 630.) Where such inquiry does not contribute significantly to defendant's conviction, it has been held to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Johnson; People v. Rush.) It is also well settled that a defendant cannot complain where the prosecutor pursues a line of inquiry which the defendant initiates or invites. ( People v. Saulsbury (1977), 55 Ill. App.3d 663, 371 N.E.2d 165; see also People v. Bridgeforth (1972), 51 Ill.2d 52, 281 N.E.2d 617, appeal dismissed (1972), 409 U.S. 811, 34 L.Ed.2d 66, 93 S.Ct. 100; People v. Quinlan (1980), 85 Ill. App.3d 1079, 407 N.E.2d 935.) Accordingly, the State may inquire into otherwise inadmissible and prejudicial evidence when defendant testifies to such evidence on direct.