You are here: / / THE COURT DID NOT CONDUCT ANY INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A THREE-YEAR-OLD...
,

THE COURT DID NOT CONDUCT ANY INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILD HAD THE CAPACITY TO TESTIFY; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in this sexual abuse case, held the court should have conducted an inquiry of a three-year-old child to determined the child’s capacity to testify. The child was the alleged victim of the sexual abuse:

It is undisputed that, prior to the child giving unsworn testimony, County Court did not conduct any form of inquiry or examination of the child to determine whether the child possessed sufficient intelligence and capacity to give unsworn testimony … . Without such inquiry or examination, the court could not make any determination as to whether the child was competent to give unsworn testimony. Indeed, there is no indication that the court made any findings or specific determination of the child’s competency … . In view of the foregoing, the court erred by failing to conduct an inquiry of the child that satisfied the commands of CPL 60.20 (2) … . The People contend that the initial questioning by the prosecutor and the child’s responses thereto concerning pedigree information satisfied the strictures of CPL 60.20 (2). Even if we agreed with the People that such questioning was procedurally proper, the colloquy between the prosecutor and the child fails to disclose that the child “understood the difference between a truth and a lie and was competent to testify” … . People v Reed, 2022 NY Slip Op 06657, Third Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here the court did not conduct any inquiry to determine whether a three-year-old child had the capacity to testify. The child was the alleged victim of the charged sexual abuse. The conviction was reversed.

 

You might also like
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT CONDUCTING A COLLOQUY TO DETERMINE THE WAIVER WAS VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT; THE INFORMATION IN THE WARRANT DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
HERE THE FACILITY REVIEW OFFICER VIEWED THE VIDEO EVIDENCE AND EXPRESSED THE CONCLUSION PETITIONER HAD VIOLATED PRISON RULES BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING; THAT SAME OFFICER DECIDED PETITIONER’S ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL; THAT SCENARIO VIOLATED DUE PROCESS; THE MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).
Criteria for Termination of Parental Rights Based Upon Abandonment Explained
THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE INDICTMENT COUNTS CHARGING DEFENDANT STATE TROOPER WITH “DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE” CRIMES STEMMING FROM HIGH-SPEED CHASES OF PURPORTED SPEEDERS WHICH RESULTED IN CRASHES AND THE DEATH OF A CHILD; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT WHICH ARGUED THE CRITERIA FOR “DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE” WERE NOT MET (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH TWO CHILDREN HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM MOTHER’S CARE AFTER NEGLECT FINDINGS AND MOTHER ALLEGEDLY CONCEALED HER PREGNANCY AND FAILED TO SEEK APPROPRIATE PRENATAL CARE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING MOTHER HAD NEGLECTED HER NEWBORN WAS NOT APPROPRIATE; MATTER REMITTED TO BE HEARD BY A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).
SUPREME COURT ERRONEOUSLY IGNORED AN ARTIFICIAL MONUMENT DESCRIBED IN A DEED WHEN ATTEMPTING TO RESOLVE A BOUNDARY DISPUTE (THIRD DEPT).
Religious Brochure Urging Confession (Given to Defendant by a Deputy Sheriff) Required Trial Court to Make Sure Defendant Understood His Right to Refrain from Testifying at Trial—Trial Court’s Colloquy with Defendant Deemed Sufficient
NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AGAINST THE BOARD OF PAROLE (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HERE PLAINTIFF BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE CHILD... ​ THE ATTEMPT TO HOLD DEFENDANT PLUMBING COMPANY LIABLE FOR THE LEAK WHICH...