Legal Opinion
People v. Barreto-Mejia
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 19, 2012PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the trial court properly determined that the then 10-year-old complainant was a vulnerable child witness within the meaning of CPL 65.20 based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, which collectively established, by clear and convincing evidence, several of the 12 factors cited in CPL 65.20 (10) (see CPL 65.20 [10]; People v Cintron, 75 NY2d 249, 267 [1990]; People v Ramos, 203 AD2d 599 [1994]; People v Lindstadt, 174 AD2d 696, 697 [1991]; People v Guce, 164 AD2d 946, 947 [1990]). Accordingly, that complainant was properly permitted…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. CintronNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- People v. GuceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- People v. LindstadtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- People v. RamosAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
3Cited by6 opinions
- People v. BeltranAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- In re R.T.New York City Family Court · 2017
- Jose Luis Barreto-Mejia v. Mark RoyceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2026
- Jose Luis Barreto-Mejia v. Mark RoyceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2026
- People v. Barreto-MejiaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.