Legal Opinion
Inkelis v. Lehman
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided June 28, 1956PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Per curiam
It was error to receive the unsworn testimony of a 10-year-old infant. However, we are of the opinion that this eyewitness to the accident should have been sworn since her voir dire disclosed sufficient capacity, intelligence and understanding of the difference between truth and falsehood. She was sensitive of the fact that failure to tell the truth would expose her to punishment but her unawareness of the precise punishment or the agency therefor should not have disqualified her. (See Gehl v. Bachmann-Bechtel Brewing Co., 156 App. Div. 51; People v. Linzey, 79 Hun 23; Agnew v. Brooklyn City…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Sagorsky v. MalyonNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- Collins v. South Boston RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Stein v. PalisiNew York Court of Appeals · 1955
- People v. LinzeyNew York Supreme Court · 1894
- Gehl v. Bachmann-Bechtel Brewing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Fineman v. KrebsAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1959