We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in its Sandoval ruling, and note that the People abided by that ruling. It was the defendant, who introduced in direct testimony, the details of an attempted murder conviction that had been precluded by the court's ruling, and who stated that he regularly carried and used a gun to shoot people, thus failing to show any possible prejudice resulting from the trial court's Sandoval ruling (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371).
Defendant's claim of error in the admission of testimony of two witnesses regarding the complainant's report of the rape was not preserved by appropriate objection (see, e.g., People v Iannelli, 69 N.Y.2d 684, cert denied 482 U.S. 914). In any event, the testimony of the complainant's sister that complainant told her she had been raped, and that defendant was the rapist, upon returning home shortly after the incident, was properly admitted as prompt outcry evidence (Baccio v People, 41 N.Y. 265). Considering the testimony of the complainant that defendant threatened to kill her if she reported the rape, and defendant's testimony that he regularly carried a gun to shoot people, a one-day delay in reporting the rape to the police is unremarkable, allowing the testimony of the police detective that the complainant told him of the rape the next morning (see, People v O'Sullivan, 104 N.Y. 481).
Defendant has also failed to preserve his claim of improper comments by the prosecutor in summation, by appropriate objection (see, e.g., People v Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641). In any event, the prosecutor's summation constituted fair comment on the evidence (People v Fielding, 158 N.Y. 542), and appropriate response to defense counsel's summation comments attacking the credibility of all of the People's witnesses (see, e.g., People v Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, cert denied 362 U.S. 912).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.