People v. Robinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Robinson

3 A.D.3d 404, 770 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 408

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 20, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 404 (People v. Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Robinson, 3 A.D.3d 404, 770 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silver-man, J.), rendered March 22, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

Although the court’s participation in examining witnesses was extensive, it was within reasonable bounds and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. The court did not take on either the function or appearance of an advocate (see People v Arnold, 98 NY2d 63, 67 [2002]; People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44 [1981]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing fair restrictions on cross-examination, primarily involving matters of form rather than substance, that did not interfere with defendant’s defense (see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679 [1986]). Concur—Buckley, P.J, Mazzarelli, Saxe, Sullivan and Rosenberger, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silver-man, J.), rendered March 22, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

Although the court’s participation in examining witnesses was extensive, it was within reasonable bounds and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. The court did not take on either the function or appearance of an advocate (see People v Arnold, 98 NY2d 63, 67 [2002]; People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44 [1981]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing fair restrictions on cross-examination, primarily involving matters of form rather than substance, that did not interfere with defendant’s defense (see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679 [1986]). Concur—Buckley, P.J, Mazzarelli, Saxe, Sullivan and Rosenberger, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 404, 770 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-robinson-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack