PEOPLE v. MEJIA

Defendant's claim that the court improperly precluded his expert from giving an opinion about tests which were not performed by the prosecution experts was not preserved. Since defendant made no offer of proof, he failed to make known his position with respect to the court's ruling at a time when it could have been corrected ( People v George, 67 N.Y.2d 817, 819). Moreover, the stricken portion of the expert's answer was not responsive to the question asked, and defendant's present claim that these unnamed tests would have been relevant to the issue of identification which in this case involved three perpetrators is speculative at best ( see, People v Smith, 204 A.D.2d 140, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 872).

Defendant's claims that the People's lay witnesses were improperly permitted to give a "psychiatric evaluation" of the complainant's apparent emotional state after the attack upon her, and that their descriptions of her crying and sobbing were prejudicial to him, were not preserved by the general objections registered thereto ( People v Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879). Moreover, since defendant placed in issue whether any rape occurred, the complainant's prompt outcry and descriptions of her emotional state soon after the attack became relevant to material issues in the case ( People v Terrence, 205 A.D.2d 301, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 873). Any issue raised by the People's introduction of portions of the complainant's Grand Jury testimony was not preserved by objection, and in any event its introduction was proper rebuttal to defendant's implication on cross-examination, based on other portions of the complainant's Grand Jury testimony, that the complainant's trial testimony was a recent fabrication ( People v Richards, 184 A.D.2d 222, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 1029).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.