From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rosado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 1990
157 A.D.2d 754 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 16, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence for sodomy in the first degree (two counts) to two indeterminate terms of 4 to 12 years' imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).

The defendant's contention that the trial court did not conduct a proper inquiry into whether the complainant was competent to be sworn is not preserved for our review (CPL 470.05). In any event, the defendant's assertion is without merit. CPL 60.20 (2) provides, in pertinent part, that, "[a] child less than twelve years old may not testify under oath unless the court is satisfied that he understands the nature of an oath". It is well settled that the decision of whether an infant is competent to testify under oath rests primarily with the trial court which had the opportunity to view the child's manner and demeanor (see, People v. Nisoff, 36 N.Y.2d 560, 566, citing Wheeler v. United States, 159 U.S. 523, 524-525). The record indicates that the complainant demonstrated an ability to understand the meaning of the taking of an oath, and that she had sufficient intelligence to recall the events in question.

The defendant has failed to demonstrate a deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705). However, we find the sentence was excessive to the extent indicated.

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rosado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 1990
157 A.D.2d 754 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Rosado

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANGEL ROSADO, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 16, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 754 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
550 N.Y.S.2d 48

Citing Cases

People v. Velez

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, after conducting the requisite…

People v. Roger

We disagree. The trial court's determination of whether a child is competent to give sworn testimony is…