Defendant was convicted by a jury of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.529c(l)(a); MSA 28.788(3)(l)(a), and was sen *210 tenced to a prison tеrm of 2-1/2 to 15 years. He appeals as of right raising three issues.
The six-year-old victim, Beth Ann Thompson, testified at trial. Though her testimony was at times contradictory, it disclosed that on one night in July, 1980, while her mother was out with her boyfriend, defendant and three other adults spent the night with Beth Ann, her three-year-old sister and her cousin. After Beth Ann had fallen asleep, defendant woke her and took her into her mother’s bedroom whеre he touched her on her "cookie”. Beth Ann’s mother testified that "cookie” was Beth Ann’s word for her genitals. Beth Ann did not tell her mother about the incident but did tell her aunt approximately one week later.
Beth Ann’s aunt, Mary King, testified that she was with Beth Ann during the weekend of July 13, 1980. She was аllowed to testify, over defense objection, concerning the statements Beth Ann made to her relative to the incident. Accоrding to Mrs. King, Beth Ann appeared nervous and upset when she made the statements and was shaking and complained of a stomachache. Beth Ann told Mrs. King that defendant had tried to put his "privates” in her mouth and between her legs and that he was "messing with her”. Beth Ann also told her aunt that she had not told her mother about the incident.
Defendant asserts as his first issue on appeal that it was reversible error for the trial сourt to allow the complainant’s aunt, Mary King, to testify relative to the statements made to her by complainant concerning the incident approximately one week after the incident. At trial, defense counsel’s only objection to the testimony was that the delay between the time of the incident *211 and the statements made by the complainant to Mrs. King had not been explained. The prosecutor thereafter laid the foundation by eliciting testimony from the complainant concerning the reasons for the delay. After hearing this testimony, the trial court ruled that Mrs. King’s testimony was admissible, finding the reason for the delay to be Beth Ann’s fear of her mother’s disbelief and her concern that her mother would think she was a "bad girl”.
The complaint or statements of a victim of criminal sexual conduct may be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under MRE 803(2) as an excited utterance.
People v Turner,
On the record presented, the trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the sexual assault upon the six-year-old victim in the present case by a family friend was a startling event and that Beth Ann was still under stress caused by the event for a week thereafter. Beth Ann’s statements were volunteered and, therefore, spontaneous. Finally, the one-week delay between the incident and the statements made to Mrs. King does nоt preclude admissibility since there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the delay was caused by the victim’s tendеr age and fear of her mother’s reaction. The trial court properly admitted the challenged testimony.
Defendant next cоntends that his conviction should be reversed because the information alleged that the offense occurred on July 4, 1980, while the prоsecutor’s proofs at trial showed that it could have occurred on either July 3, 1980, or July 4, 1980. While there was conflicting testimony from the witnessеs at trial as to whether the night in question was July 3 or July 4, 1980, all the testimony was confined to those two dates. Defendant presented an alibi to bоth dates in question. MCL 767.45(2); MSA 28.985(2) states that an information shall contain the time of the offense as near as may be but no variance as to time shall be fatal unless time is of the essence of the offense. Time is not of the essence nor a material element in a criminаl sexual conduct case, at least where the victim is a child.
People v Howell,
Finally, in sentencing defendant, the trial judge stated:
"Thе sentence of the Court is that you, Mr. McConnell, — let me put it to you this way, Mr. McConnell, so you clearly understand: the court is going to give you 2-1/2 tо 15 in the Michigan Corrections Commission for this oifense.
"I would ordinarily give you 2 to 15, but I am giving you 2-1/2 because I feel you lied under oath.”
Defendant contends the trial judge erred in increasing his sentence by six months on the ground that the judge believed he lied under oath, asserting that such considеration is improper. We agree.
As a general rule, a sentencing judge is awarded wide discretion when the sentence is within the statutоry parameters.
People v McLott,
In the instant case, the statements of the trial judge at sentencing clearly indicate that in deciding upon the sentence he improperly relied upon his belief that the defendant commited perjury during the trial and that as a result the sentеnce was enhanced. Since the sentencing judge stated that the minimum sentence he would impose absent the impermissible consideration was 2 years, rather than remand for resentencing, we hereby amend the sentence to a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 15 years. GCR 1963, 820.1(7).
Affirmed as modified.