People v. Brill
| Decision Date | 08 December 1997 |
| Parties | , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,599 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Daniel J. BRILL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Megan Ann Gallagher, East Rockaway, for appellant.
Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola (Tammy J. Smiley and Delores S. Heredia, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and COPERTINO, KRAUSMAN and McGINITY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered June 5, 1995, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the seven-year-old complainant to testify as a sworn witness, as she had " 'some conception' of the obligations of an oath and the consequences of giving false testimony" (People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 46, 390 N.Y.S.2d 848, 359 N.E.2d 358, quoting People v. Washor, 196 N.Y. 104, 109, 89 N.E. 441). Although she gave perfunctory answers to the court's sometimes leading questions, her testimony, as a whole, demonstrated that she understood she had a moral duty to tell the truth (see, People v. Maldonado, 199 A.D.2d 563, 606 N.Y.S.2d 258; People v. Ranum, 122 A.D.2d 959, 506 N.Y.S.2d 105; People v. Cintron, 214 A.D.2d 349, 625 N.Y.S.2d 148). She knew the difference between the truth and a lie, knew that she would be punished if she did not tell the truth, and stated that she would tell the truth in court.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hines
...Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 45, 390 N.Y.S.2d 848, 359 N.E.2d 358 ; Matter of David S., 6 A.D.3d 539, 540, 775 N.Y.S.2d 353 ; People v. Brill, 245 A.D.2d 384, 385, 666 N.Y.S.2d 195 ). Furthermore, on this record, the witness could properly have been permitted to testify as an unsworn witness (see C......
-
Brill v. Superintendent, Oneida Correctional Fac., 03-CV-0190 (ADS).
...Division, Second Department ("Appellate Division"), affirmed the Petitioner's judgment of conviction. See People v. Brill, 245 A.D.2d 384, 666 N.Y.S.2d 195 (2d Dep't 1997). On January 14, 1998, the New York Court of Appeals denied the Petitioner's request for leave to appeal. See People v. ......
-
People v. Brown
...leading questions, her testimony, as a whole, demonstrated that she understood she had a moral duty to tell the truth” ( People v. Brill, 245 A.D.2d 384, 385, 666 N.Y.S.2d 195, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 889, 669 N.Y.S.2d 3, 691 N.E.2d 1029; cf. People v. Maldonado, 199 A.D.2d 563, 606 N.Y.S.2d 2......
-
James B., In re
...questions, his testimony, as a whole, demonstrated that he understood that he had a moral duty to tell the truth (cf., People v. Brill, 245 A.D.2d 384, 666 N.Y.S.2d 195; People v. Maldonado, 199 A.D.2d 563, 606 N.Y.S.2d 258; People v. Ranum, 122 A.D.2d 959, 506 N.Y.S.2d 105). He knew the di......