People v. Mendoza, 2005-01749.
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 49 A.D.3d 559,2008 NY Slip Op 01973,853 N.Y.S.2d 364 |
| Docket Number | 2005-01749. |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE S. MENDOZA, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 04 March 2008 |
v.
JOSE S. MENDOZA, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pastoressa, J), rendered February 2, 2005, convicting him of criminal sexual act 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. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion
[49 A.D.3d 560]
which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was arrested on less than probable cause and that, as a result, his statements to law enforcement officials should have been suppressed. Where, as here, an identified citizen accuses another individual of a specific crime, the police possess probable cause to arrest (see CPL 70.10 [2]; People v Griffin, 15 AD3d 502 [2005]; People v Jansson, 305 AD2d 942, 943 [2003]; People v Green, 154 AD2d 548 [1989]; People v Singh, 142 AD2d 743, 744 [1988]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the five-year-old complainant was competent to give sworn testimony. The examination of the child revealed that she knew the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie, promised to tell the truth, and indicated that she would be punished by her family and by God if she lied (see CPL 60.20 [2]; People v Nisoff, 36 NY2d 560, 566 [1975]; Matter of James N., 19 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2005]; People v McIver, 15 AD3d 677, 678 [2005]; People v Gillard, 7 AD3d 540, 541 [2004]; People v Brill, 245 AD2d 384 [1997]; People v Roger S., 168 AD2d 581 [1990]). In any event, on this record, the complainant could properly have been permitted to testify as an unsworn witness (see CPL 60.20 [2]) because her testimony was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence (see People v Groff, 71 NY2d 101, 109-110 [1987]; People v Maldonado, 199 AD2d 563 [1993]), including the defendant's own statements to the police. Thus, even if permitting the complainant to testify under oath had constituted error, it would not require reversal (see People v McIver, 15 AD3d 677,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross v. New York, 18-CV-7219(JS)
...at trial, she was permitted to give sworn testimony without the court inquiring into whether she was fit to do so. Cf. People v. Mendoza, 49 A.D.3d 559, 560, 853 N.Y.S.2d 364 (2d Dep't 2008) (holding that "the [trial court] providently exercised its discretion in determining that the five-y......
-
People v. Stalter
...to give sworn testimony ( see CPL 60.20[2]; People v. Morales, 80 N.Y.2d 450, 453, 591 N.Y.S.2d 825, 606 N.E.2d 953; People v. Mendoza, 49 A.D.3d 559, 560, 853 N.Y.S.2d 364). The examination of the child revealed that she knew the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie, knew......
-
People v. Izzo
...a child sex abuse victim is not always improper ( see People v. Porlier, 55 A.D.3d 1059, 1062, 865 N.Y.S.2d 732 [2008];People v. Mendoza, 49 A.D.3d 559, 561, 853 N.Y.S.2d 364 [2008],lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 937, 862 N.Y.S.2d 343, 892 N.E.2d 409 [2008] ). Defendant's claim that his counsel failed......
-
People v. Lapi
...and the consequences of lying ( see People v. Nisoff, 36 N.Y.2d 560, 566, 369 N.Y.S.2d 686, 330 N.E.2d 638 [1975];People v. Mendoza, 49 A.D.3d 559, 560, 853 N.Y.S.2d 364 [2008],lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 937, 862 N.Y.S.2d 343, 892 N.E.2d 409 [2008] ). As a whole, the victim's voir dire testimony d......
-
Ross v. New York
...at trial, she was permitted to give sworn testimony without the court inquiring into whether she was fit to do so. Cf. People v. Mendoza, 49 A.D.3d 559, 560, 853 N.Y.S.2d 364 (2d Dep't 2008) (holding that "the [trial court] providently exercised its discretion in determining that the five-y......
-
People v. Izzo
...a child sex abuse victim is not always improper ( see People v. Porlier, 55 A.D.3d 1059, 1062, 865 N.Y.S.2d 732 [2008];People v. Mendoza, 49 A.D.3d 559, 561, 853 N.Y.S.2d 364 [2008],lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 937, 862 N.Y.S.2d 343, 892 N.E.2d 409 [2008] ). Defendant's claim that his counsel failed......
-
People v. Stalter
...to give sworn testimony ( see CPL 60.20[2]; People v. Morales, 80 N.Y.2d 450, 453, 591 N.Y.S.2d 825, 606 N.E.2d 953; People v. Mendoza, 49 A.D.3d 559, 560, 853 N.Y.S.2d 364). The examination of the child revealed that she knew the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie, knew......
-
People v. Lapi
...and the consequences of lying ( see People v. Nisoff, 36 N.Y.2d 560, 566, 369 N.Y.S.2d 686, 330 N.E.2d 638 [1975];People v. Mendoza, 49 A.D.3d 559, 560, 853 N.Y.S.2d 364 [2008],lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 937, 862 N.Y.S.2d 343, 892 N.E.2d 409 [2008] ). As a whole, the victim's voir dire testimony d......