Case ID: ny-2d_86/html/0864-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[658 NE2d 1040, 635 NYS2d 167]
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Scott, Appellant.
    Decided October 26, 1995
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Bernetta A. Bourcy, Canandaigua, for appellant.
    
      R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney of Ontario County, Canandaigua (Brian David Dennis of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The Appellate Division’s finding that defendant’s confession was voluntary, a mixed question of law and fact, is supported by evidence in the record and therefore beyond this Court’s further review (see, People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470, 477; People v Johnson, 40 NY2d 882, 883). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the four-year-old victim to give unsworn testimony after having conducted an inquiry outside the presence of the jury and determining that the child understood the difference between a truth and a lie and was competent to testify (see, CPL 60.20 [2]; People v Parks, 41 NY2d 36; People v Nisoff, 36 NY2d 560, 566).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.