People v. Miiller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Miiller

162 A.D.2d 1016, 559 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9786

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

DecidedJune 22, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 1016 (People v. Miiller) 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. Miiller, 162 A.D.2d 1016, 559 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: None of the issues raised by defendant is meritorious. His sentence of 4 to 12 years’ imprisonment was not excessive considering the nature of the crime and the age of the victim. The court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict because defendant failed to show that counsel did not advise him of the plea offer made prior to trial. The court properly received the sworn testimony of the infant witnesses, who were 9 and 11 years old at the time of trial. The decision whether to accept the sworn testimony of a child less than 12 years of age rests primarily with the Trial Judge and his decision will not be disturbed upon review unless clearly erroneous. In our view, the court did not err in determining that the infant witnesses understood the nature of an oath (see, CPL 60.20 [2]). Finally, we see no reason to disturb the suppression court’s finding that defendant was not in custody when he gave his statement to the police. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Houston, J.—sodomy, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: None of the issues raised by defendant is meritorious. His sentence of 4 to 12 years’ imprisonment was not excessive considering the nature of the crime and the age of the victim. The court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict because defendant failed to show that counsel did not advise him of the plea offer made prior to trial. The court properly received the sworn testimony of the infant witnesses, who were 9 and 11 years old at the time of trial. The decision whether to accept the sworn testimony of a child less than 12 years of age rests primarily with the Trial Judge and his decision will not be disturbed upon review unless clearly erroneous. In our view, the court did not err in determining that the infant witnesses understood the nature of an oath (see, CPL 60.20 [2]). Finally, we see no reason to disturb the suppression court’s finding that defendant was not in custody when he gave his statement to the police. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Houston, J.—sodomy, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 1016, 559 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-miiller-nyappdiv-1990.