From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 1997
245 A.D.2d 384 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

December 8, 1997

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the seven-year-old complainant to testify as a sworn witness, as she had "`some conception' of the obligations of an oath and the consequences of giving false testimony" (People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 46, quoting People v. Washor, 196 N.Y. 104, 109). Although she gave perfunctory answers to the court's sometimes leading questions, her testimony, as a whole, demonstrated that she understood she had a moral duty to tell the truth (see, People v. Maldonado, 199 A.D.2d 563; People v. Ranum, 122 A.D.2d 959; People v. Cintron, 214 A.D.2d 349). She knew the difference between the truth and a lie, knew that she would be punished if she did not tell the truth, and stated that she would tell the truth in court.

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Brill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 1997
245 A.D.2d 384 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Brill

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DANIEL J. BRILL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 8, 1997

Citations

245 A.D.2d 384 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
666 N.Y.S.2d 195

Citing Cases

People v. Mendoza

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining…

People v. Hines

The defendant's objection to the Supreme Court's taking of the sworn testimony of a particular witness who…