People v. Graham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Graham

180 A.D.2d 438, 580 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1163

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 180 A.D.2d 438 (People v. Graham) 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. Graham, 180 A.D.2d 438, 580 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1163 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.), rendered June 25, 1990, convicting defendant, after a non-jury trial, of four counts of sodomy in the first degree, and sentencing him to four concurrent terms of imprisonment of 7 to 21 years, is unanimously affirmed.

[439]*439Defendant stands convicted of sexual crimes against his stepson. On appeal, defendant argues that it was error to place his stepson, ten years old at the time of trial, under oath, since there was no demonstration that he understood the nature of an oath. Under CPL 60.20, a witness less than 12 years old may not testify under oath unless the court finds that the witness understands the nature of an oath (People v Fernandez, 138 AD2d 733, lv withdrawn 72 NY2d 858). Here, the voir dire reveals that the child understood the nature of the oath, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing him to testify under oath. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.), rendered June 25, 1990, convicting defendant, after a non-jury trial, of four counts of sodomy in the first degree, and sentencing him to four concurrent terms of imprisonment of 7 to 21 years, is unanimously affirmed.

[439]*439Defendant stands convicted of sexual crimes against his stepson. On appeal, defendant argues that it was error to place his stepson, ten years old at the time of trial, under oath, since there was no demonstration that he understood the nature of an oath. Under CPL 60.20, a witness less than 12 years old may not testify under oath unless the court finds that the witness understands the nature of an oath (People v Fernandez, 138 AD2d 733, lv withdrawn 72 NY2d 858). Here, the voir dire reveals that the child understood the nature of the oath, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing him to testify under oath. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 438, 580 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-graham-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack