PEOPLE v. SEVILLA (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Karen M. Wilutis, J.), rendered April 29, 2022, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (two counts), course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in failing to conduct further inquiry of juror No. 10 in response to a statement made during voir dire is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to challenge the prospective juror for cause in the trial court (see People v. O'Doherty, 236 A.D.3d 929, 930, 229 N.Y.S.3d 608;  People v. Tieman, 132 A.D.3d 703, 704, 17 N.Y.S.3d 743).  In any event, the defendant waived any challenge to juror No. 10 since he did not use a peremptory challenge against that juror and did not exhaust all of his peremptory challenges before the selection of the jury was complete (see CPL 270.15[4];  270.20[2];  People v. Tieman, 132 A.D.3d at 704, 17 N.Y.S.3d 743).

The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit since he has failed to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's failure to challenge juror No. 10 and, viewing defense counsel's performance as a whole, the defendant was provided with meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

Generally, evidence that a victim of sexual assault promptly complained about the incident is admissible to corroborate the allegation that an assault took place (see People v. Rosario, 17 N.Y.3d 501, 511, 934 N.Y.S.2d 59, 958 N.E.2d 93;  People v. Rodriguez–Rodriguez, 248 A.D.3d 945, 945, 256 N.Y.S.3d 267).  The prompt outcry rule, an exception to the inadmissibility of the prior consistent statements of an unimpeached witness, permits evidence that a timely complaint was made, but does not allow further testimony as to the details of the incident (see People v. Rosario, 17 N.Y.3d at 511, 934 N.Y.S.2d 59, 958 N.E.2d 93;  People v. Robertson, 240 A.D.3d 617, 619, 235 N.Y.S.3d 454).  Promptness is a relative concept dependent on the facts (see People v. Rosario, 17 N.Y.3d at 512–513, 934 N.Y.S.2d 59, 958 N.E.2d 93;  People v. Rodriguez–Rodriguez, 248 A.D.3d at 945, 256 N.Y.S.3d 267).  A significant delay in reporting does not necessarily preclude outcry evidence, particularly where the victim is a child (see People v. Robertson, 240 A.D.3d at 619, 235 N.Y.S.3d 454;  People v. Maisonette, 192 A.D.3d 1325, 1328, 144 N.Y.S.3d 752).

Here, the County Court permitted testimony concerning the first complainant's disclosure of sexual abuse to a school counselor made more than 18 months after the last incident of abuse.  Under the circumstances presented, including the first complainant's young age, the fact that she lived with the defendant during the relevant time period, the ongoing and familial relationship between the first complainant and the defendant, and the circumstances surrounding the disclosure, the court properly admitted, as a prompt outcry, the testimony of the school counselor regarding the first complainant's disclosure (see People v. Robertson, 240 A.D.3d at 619, 235 N.Y.S.3d 454;  People v. Evangelista, 155 A.D.3d 972, 972–973, 65 N.Y.S.3d 240).  Moreover, the testimony regarding the disclosure did not exceed the allowable level of detail (see People v. Rodriguez–Rodriguez, 248 A.D.3d at 946, 256 N.Y.S.3d 267;  People v. Kittles, 23 A.D.3d 775, 776, 803 N.Y.S.2d 771).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did not permit a particular detective's testimony regarding statements made to him by the second complainant under the prompt outcry exception to the hearsay rule.  Although the defendant preserved his contention that the detective's testimony regarding the statements made by the second complainant was inadmissible under the prompt outcry exception, he made no objection to the court's finding that the testimony was admissible for the relevant, nonhearsay purpose of explaining the investigative process and completing the narrative of events leading to the defendant's arrest.  Thus, to the extent the defendant seeks to challenge the court's admission of the evidence, such contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ).  In any event, the contention is without merit (see People v. Ludwig, 24 N.Y.3d 221, 231, 997 N.Y.S.2d 351, 21 N.E.3d 1012;  People v. Perez–Castellanos, 211 A.D.3d 646, 646–647, 181 N.Y.S.3d 67).

GENOVESI, J.P., WARHIT, GOLIA, and HOM, JJ., concur.