From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Vale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1993
198 A.D.2d 246 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

November 1, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Calabretta, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We disagree with the defendant's contention that the Trial Judge's questioning of defense witnesses, as well as certain comments he made during the trial, denied him a fair trial.

A Trial Judge is not prohibited from actively participating in the fact-finding process, although "care should be assiduously exercised lest the Trial Judge's conduct, in the form of words, actions or demeanor, does not divert or itself become an irrelevant subject of the jury's focus" (People v De Jesus, 42 N.Y.2d 519, 523; see, People v Jamison, 47 N.Y.2d 882; People v Bell, 38 N.Y.2d 116). On this record, it does not appear that the jury was prevented from arriving at an impartial verdict on the merits (see, People v Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 946; People v Gonzalez, 38 N.Y.2d 208, 210).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Vale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1993
198 A.D.2d 246 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Vale

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JASON VALE, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 1, 1993

Citations

198 A.D.2d 246 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
603 N.Y.S.2d 515

Citing Cases

People v. Smith

The defendant's contention that the trial court unduly interfered with the questioning of witnesses at trial…

People v. Rupnarine

15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great…