Opinion
December 23, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that it was error for the trial court to allow testimony that the victim told her mother, stepfather, the police, and an Assistant District Attorney about what the defendant had done to her. The court did not err in permitting the complainant, her mother, and the complainant's friend, to testify that the complainant told her mother about the incidents on the mornings after their occurrence. Such testimony is admissible as evidence of a prompt outcry (Richardson, Evidence § 519 [Prince 10th ed]; see also, Baccio v People, 41 N.Y. 265; People v O'Sullivan, 104 N.Y. 481). However, the court did err in allowing testimony that the complainant had told her stepfather, the police, and an Assistant District Attorney about the incidents two days after the last occurrence. Evidence concerning those complaints was not admissible because they cannot be considered "prompt" outcries (see, People v O'Sullivan, supra). The court also erred in allowing testimony regarding the details of the victim's complaints, since such details are outside the exception to the hearsay rule permitting the introduction of such testimony (see, People v Wooden, 66 A.D.2d 1004; People v Smith, 129 A.D.2d 747). Nevertheless, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, we find these errors to be harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Rice, 75 N.Y.2d 929, 932; People v Smith, supra).
The defendant also contends that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of his witnesses, and improperly expressed his personal opinion in his opening statement and during his summation. Since the defendant made no objection to any of the statements by the prosecutor, to which he would now assign error, this issue is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05). In any event, we find that the prosecutor did not express his personal opinion about the defendant's guilt (see, People v Simmons, 110 A.D.2d 666), and his summation was a fair response to the defense summation which attacked the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses (see, People v Colon, 122 A.D.2d 151; People v Alexandria, 126 A.D.2d 655; People v Stephens, 156 A.D.2d 604).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.