Opinion
May 6, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the testimony of the complainant's father concerning statements that his daughter made to him was admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. The statements were made within a short time after the incident in which the 14-year-old complainant was accosted as she entered her apartment, robbed, and sexually assaulted. Her age, the traumatic nature of the incident, the absence of any reason for fabrication and evidence that she was nervous and crying at the time the statements were made, established that the remarks were not the product of studied reflection (see, People v Brown, 70 N.Y.2d 513; People v Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493). In addition, there was an added assurance of reliability since the complainant was subject to cross-examination (cf., People v Caviness, 38 N.Y.2d 227). In any event, even if the testimony was erroneously admitted, the error was harmless. Any bolstering effect from the father's testimony was insignificant since the statements did not involve the crucial issue of identification (see, People v Alberto, 144 A.D.2d 368). Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.