People v. Chesnard

175 A.D.2d 254
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 22, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 175 A.D.2d 254 (People v. Chesnard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Chesnard, 175 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered March 9, 1990, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

We find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the two seven-year-old complainants and the 11-year-old complainant to testify under oath. The court’s preliminary examination of each child adequately demonstrated that each of the three children understood the nature of testifying under oath and that each child was competent to be sworn as a witness (see, CPL 60.20 [2]). Under the circumstances, the court’s determinations on this issue should not be disturbed (see, People v Nisoff, 36 NY2d 560; People v Cangiano, 156 AD2d 575; People v Tyler, 154 AD2d 490; People v Hardie, 144 AD2d 484).

The sentence imposed was not excessive or unduly harsh. Sentences imposed after trial may be more than those suggested as part of a proposed plea agreement (see, People v Oliver, 63 NY2d 973; People v Norfleet, 146 AD2d 812). Also, [255]*255the mere speculation that due to his advanced age or his prior health problems, the defendant might suffer harm if incarcerated, does not suffice to warrant a modification of the sentence imposed (see, People v Kelsky, 144 AD2d 386).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Schonfeld
68 A.D.3d 449 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Gold
249 A.D.2d 414 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Davis
182 A.D.2d 826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 A.D.2d 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chesnard-nyappdiv-1991.