The court properly determined that a child called as a witness for defendant could only offer unsworn testimony. The inquiries from the court demonstrated that although she knew the difference between the truth and a lie, the child lacked an understanding of the nature and consequences of an oath (People v. Nisoff, 36 N.Y.2d 560; see also People v. Maldonado, 199 A.D.2d 563). In making such an inquiry, the trial court has the unique opportunity to view the child's demeanor, and its findings are entitled to deference (People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 46).
The court's reasonable doubt instruction conveyed the appropriate legal principles and nothing in that instruction, or in any other part of the court's charge, imposed an affirmative obligation on the jurors to articulate a reason for having a doubt (see People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247, 251-252).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.