People v. Roger S.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1990 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. ROGER S. (Anonymous), Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Adrienne M. Gantt, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Anthea H. Bruffee and Philip J. Holmes, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BROWN, KUNZEMAN and MILLER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered April 29, 1988, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the trial court erred by allowing the complainant, who was five years old at the time of the crime, and eight years old at the time of the trial, to give sworn testimony. We disagree. The trial court's determination of whether a child is competent to give sworn testimony is entitled to significant deference on appeal (see, People v. Nisoff, 36 N.Y.2d 560, 566, 369 N.Y.S.2d 686, 330 N.E.2d 638; People v. Rosado, 157 A.D.2d 754, 755, 550 N.Y.S.2d 48). In the present case, the complainant demonstrated that he was able to distinguish between telling the truth, which was a "good thing", and telling a lie, which was a "bad thing". Moreover, he understood that a promise to tell the truth meant that he would not lie, and that if he did lie, he would be punished. Thus, the complainant displayed an awareness of "the nature of an oath" (CPL 60.20[2], and the trial court properly exercised its discretion in allowing him to give sworn testimony (see, People v. Tyler, 154 A.D.2d 490, 546 N.Y.S.2d 113).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Waters
...had sufficient intelligence and capacity to testify under oath (see, People v. Heck, 229 A.D.2d 931, 645 N.Y.S.2d 681; People v. Roger S., 168 A.D.2d 581, 562 N.Y.S.2d 797). We have considered the remaining contention of defendant and conclude that it is without merit (see generally, People......
- People v. Sellers
-
McPherson v. City of New York Police Dept., 2009 NY Slip Op 52206(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 11/2/2009)
...791 NYS2d 587; People v. Gillard, 7 AD3d 540, 541,776 N.Y.S 2d 95; People v. Brill, 245 AD2d 384, 666 N.Y.S 2d 195; People v. Roger S., 168 AD2d 581, 562 N.Y.S 2d 797). As such, children are required to demonstrate that they understand the consequences of not telling the truth before their ......