People v. Medina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Medina

246 A.D.2d 308, 666 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D.2d 308 (People v. Medina) 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. Medina, 246 A.D.2d 308, 666 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered April 12, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s ruling allowing testimony of the victim’s daughter, who was eight years old at the time of trial, was a proper exercise of discretion, since the record of the voir dire reflects that the child had the requisite intelligence and capacity to testify at trial and understood the nature and consequence of the oath (see, People v Parks, 41 NY2d 36, 50). The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Rice, 223 AD2d 405, lv denied 87 NY2d 1024). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion and conclude that the sentence was not based on any inappropriate criteria. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered April 12, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s ruling allowing testimony of the victim’s daughter, who was eight years old at the time of trial, was a proper exercise of discretion, since the record of the voir dire reflects that the child had the requisite intelligence and capacity to testify at trial and understood the nature and consequence of the oath (see, People v Parks, 41 NY2d 36, 50). The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Rice, 223 AD2d 405, lv denied 87 NY2d 1024). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion and conclude that the sentence was not based on any inappropriate criteria. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 308, 666 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-medina-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack