People v. St. John, 47 N.Y.2d 117 (1979)
In cases of sexual abuse, a trial court has discretion to allow child witnesses to testify, even if unsworn, after adequately inquiring into their understanding and intelligence; evidence of similar uncharged acts is admissible to show the defendant’s disposition and the ongoing relationship between the parties.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for deviate sexual practices with his daughters. The court held that the trial judge properly exercised discretion in allowing child witnesses, some unsworn, to testify after assessing their understanding. It further ruled that testimony from neighbor children about similar uncharged acts committed by the defendant upon his daughters was admissible to show the defendant’s disposition and the ongoing relationship between the parties within the home, where the charged acts occurred.
Facts
The defendant was charged with deviate sexual acts involving his daughters. The prosecution presented testimony from multiple child witnesses, ranging in age from 6 to 12 and a half years old. The trial judge administered oaths to all but the 6 and 7-year-old witnesses. The prosecution also presented testimony from neighbor children who observed similar uncharged deviate acts by the defendant against his daughters. These acts occurred within the defendant’s home.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing child witnesses under 12 years of age to testify, some without being sworn.
2. Whether the trial court erred in allowing neighbor children to testify about their observations of similar uncharged deviate acts committed by the defendant upon his daughters.
Holding
1. No, because the trial judge adequately inquired into the understanding and intelligence of each of the witnesses under 12 years old, and the decision to swear them or take their statements unsworn was within the judge’s discretion and not abused. The conviction did not rest solely on the interrogation of the unsworn witnesses.
2. No, because such evidence involving the ongoing relationship and conduct between the parties is relevant and permissible where the charged acts occurred within the home, open to question concerning defendant’s disposition.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on CPL 60.20, which allows children under 12 to be questioned even if they don’t understand the oath. The court emphasized the trial judge’s role in assessing each child’s understanding and intelligence. The court found no abuse of discretion in allowing the children to testify, sworn or unsworn, as the judge properly assessed their capacity. The Court further relied on *People v. Henson, 33 Y 2d 63, 72; Richardson, Evidence [10th ed.], § 182* to allow evidence of similar uncharged acts committed by the defendant. The court reasoned that because the acts occurred within the home, the acts were “open to question concerning defendant’s disposition,” and evidence of the ongoing relationship and conduct between and among the parties involved, is relevant and permissible.
The court stated, “Such evidence, involving the ongoing relationship and conduct between and among the parties involved, is relevant and permissible where the acts charged occur within the home and are open to question concerning defendant’s disposition.” The court’s decision emphasizes the importance of the trial judge’s role in assessing the competency of child witnesses and the admissibility of evidence showing the defendant’s propensity for the charged acts within the specific context of familial sexual abuse.