People v. Batista
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court improperly permitted the seven-year-old complainant to give sworn testimony is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gillard, 7 AD3d 540, 541 [2004]). In any event, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the child was competent to give sworn testimony (see CPL 60.20; People v Morales, 80 NY2d 450, 453 [1992]; People v Nisoff, 36 NY2d 560, 566 [1975]). The examination of the child revealed that she possessed sufficient intelligence and capacity to testify (see CPL 60.20 [1]), and that…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- People v. McDanielNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- People v. KellyNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- People v. NisoffNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- People v. MoralesNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- People v. MendozaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- People v. ThompsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- People v. JimenezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- People v. LashwayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. TuckerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- People v. MillerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.