Opinion
June 17, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ivan Warner, J.).
The court properly admitted outcry testimony from various individuals. Regarding the first incident in question, in light of the victim's young age and expressed fear of retribution if she disclosed the sexual attack, the complainant's report to her best friend, made the day following this incident, constituted prompt outcry that was properly admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule ( People v. Vanterpool, 214 A.D.2d 429, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 875). The same principles apply to the complainant's report to a trusted adult, made during the week following the second and third attacks ( supra; People v. Fabian, 213 A.D.2d 298, 299, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 972). We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments on this subject.
The court was not obligated to give the particular jury instruction requested by defendant in connection with consideration of prompt outcry testimony. In any event, the court's thorough and comprehensive charges regarding credibility issues assured that the jury was apprised of the governing principles. A fair reading of the record establishes defendant's lack of preservation of his current claim that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury regarding consideration of delayed outcry in connection with the charged crimes ( see, People v. Yeaden, 156 A.D.2d 208, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 872), and we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review the claim, we would find that no such charge was warranted by the evidence.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.