People v. Cummings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cummings

219 A.D.2d 757, 631 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9252

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 14, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 757 (People v. Cummings) 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. Cummings, 219 A.D.2d 757, 631 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9252 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Mikoll, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schuyler County (Callanan, Sr., J.), rendered September 13, 1993, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crimes of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts).

Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree and two counts of endanger[758]*758ing the welfare of a child for digitally penetrating the vaginas of two children he was babysitting on the evening of January 23, 1993. Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the unsworn testimony of the two victims, both under 12 years of age, was insufficiently corroborated as required by CPL 60.20 (3). In order to satisfy the statute, "[t]he proof presented must tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime so that the trier of fact is reasonably satisfied that the unsworn witness was telling the truth” (People v Tomczak, 189 AD2d 926, 927, lv denied 81 NY2d 977).

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Tomczak, supra), we conclude that the testimony of the second physician who examined the victims was sufficient for this purpose (see, People v Abair, 134 AD2d 743, 744-745, lv denied 70 NY2d 1003). The physician noted that there was an abnormal appearance of the external genital regions and hymens of both children and that these findings were consistent with physical injury by digital penetration. The testimony of the children’s father also tended to corroborate their stories and, since defendant admitted babysitting the children on the night in question, the jury could infer that defendant had the opportunity to commit the crimes (see, supra, at 745). Thus, "[t]he evidence, when taken collectively, tends to establish both the commission of the crimes and defendant’s connection thereto” (People v Tomczak, supra, at 927).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Mikoll, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schuyler County (Callanan, Sr., J.), rendered September 13, 1993, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crimes of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts).

Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree and two counts of endanger[758]*758ing the welfare of a child for digitally penetrating the vaginas of two children he was babysitting on the evening of January 23, 1993. Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the unsworn testimony of the two victims, both under 12 years of age, was insufficiently corroborated as required by CPL 60.20 (3). In order to satisfy the statute, "[t]he proof presented must tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime so that the trier of fact is reasonably satisfied that the unsworn witness was telling the truth” (People v Tomczak, 189 AD2d 926, 927, lv denied 81 NY2d 977).

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Tomczak, supra), we conclude that the testimony of the second physician who examined the victims was sufficient for this purpose (see, People v Abair, 134 AD2d 743, 744-745, lv denied 70 NY2d 1003). The physician noted that there was an abnormal appearance of the external genital regions and hymens of both children and that these findings were consistent with physical injury by digital penetration. The testimony of the children’s father also tended to corroborate their stories and, since defendant admitted babysitting the children on the night in question, the jury could infer that defendant had the opportunity to commit the crimes (see, supra, at 745). Thus, "[t]he evidence, when taken collectively, tends to establish both the commission of the crimes and defendant’s connection thereto” (People v Tomczak, supra, at 927).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 757, 631 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cummings-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack