With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". thirteen-year-old victim’s letter to her guidance counselor informing the counselor of the sexual abuse she allegedly had suffered at home. 2008 Va. App. LEXIS 460. On appeal, the alleged abuser objected to the timeliness of the complaint, arguing that “the evidence failed to adequately explain the twenty-month delay between the offense and the complaint.” Id. at *5. The court noted that “the recent complaint rule’s ‘only time requiremen holding that the twelve-year-old victim adequately explained her ten-month delay in reporting where the victim “was afraid her mother would not believe her because the defendant was her mother’s good friend,” and she was afraid that, if she told her father, “he would hurt the defendant and end up in jail”); Woodard, 19 Va. App. at 28, 448 S.E.2d at 330 (<HOLDING>); cf. Lindsey v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 11,

A: holding that the trial court in a sexual assault case erred by refusing to allow evidence of prior testimony by the complainant in an unrelated rape prosecution
B: holding that a delay in reporting an alleged rape goes to the victims credibility which is solely a jury question
C: holding that the thirteenyearold victims twomonth delay in reporting her rape is explained by and completely consistent with the all too common circumstances surrounding sexual assault on minors  fear of disbelief by others and threat of further harm from the assailant
D: holding that the victim of a sexual assault was in privity with her assailant because of her status as a claimant and potential judgment creditor of the convicted insured
C.