People v. Zuke

304 A.D.2d 910, 758 N.Y.S.2d 192, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3856
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 10, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 910 (People v. Zuke) 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. Zuke, 304 A.D.2d 910, 758 N.Y.S.2d 192, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Crew III, J.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered June 9, 2000,.upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and (2) by permission, from an order of said court, entered May 30, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction, without a hearing.

Defendant was indicted and charged with sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child in connection with a February 1999 encounter with his then six-year-old female cousin. Defendant unsuccessfully moved to suppress oral and written statements made by him to the State Police and, following a jury trial, he was convicted as charged and sentenced to, among other things, a [911]*911determinate term of imprisonment of 20 years. Defendant’s subsequent motion to vacate his judgment of conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel was denied, and these appeals ensued.

Defendant’s various contentions do not warrant extended discussion. Initially, defendant argues that County Court erred in failing to suppress the statements he made to the State Police. We disagree. The only individual who testified at the Huntley hearing was the State Police investigator who took defendant’s statements. Nothing in his testimony suggests that such statements were obtained by way of coercion, promise or threat or that they were taken absent the necessary Miranda warnings.

Next, defendant contends that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence because the infant victim was improperly permitted to give unsworn testimony and, further, that there was insufficient corroboration of such testimony. Again, we disagree. It is axiomatic that a witness less than 12 years old

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

Related

People v. Reed
210 A.D.3d 1313 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Kidwell
88 A.D.3d 1060 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Byron
85 A.D.3d 1323 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Petrie
3 A.D.3d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
304 A.D.2d 910, 758 N.Y.S.2d 192, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zuke-nyappdiv-2003.