In People v. Mendoza , the Suffolk County Supreme Court found that a five-year-old child (who had allegedly been abused) could give sworn testimony at Mendoza's trial. (In this instance, the child appreciated the difference between the truth and a lie, promised to tell the truth, and knew "she would punished by her family and by God if she lied.")
When Mendoza was found guilty of a "criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a child," he appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department, contending that it was an error to allow the child to testify and that the evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of "oral sexual conduct" and "sexual gratification."
The AD2 found that the child's testimony had been properly considered since it was corroborated by other evidence, including Mendoza's own statement to the police. When viewed in its totality, the evidence was "legally sufficient" to establish the crimes charged "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Is there any doubt Mendoza got what he deserved?
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. Mendoza