People v. Melendez
| Decision Date | 01 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | 8200. |
| Citation | 31 A.D.3d 186,815 N.Y.S.2d 551,2006 NY Slip Op 04336 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FELIX MELENDEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Barbara Zolot and Lisa Joy Robertson of counsel), for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City (Susan Axelrod of counsel), for respondent.
On this appeal from his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree as well as a related offense, defendant raises a number of issues, only one of which— that the trial court's improper intervention in the trial by extensive questioning of witnesses and interference with cross-examination deprived him of a fair trial—causes us any concern. The conviction arises out of defendant's participation in an observation sale and in his accessorial possession of the drug stash, which provided the source of the drugs that were sold.
The People's lead and, as it developed, key witness was Police Officer Daniel Keane, who, using binoculars, conducted the rooftop surveillance that captured defendant's involvement in the sale and related events and led to his arrest. On the afternoon of February 6, 2003, Keane, part of a team assigned to observe narcotics activity in upper Manhattan and to make arrests based thereon, had observed defendant and his codefendant, Jose Valdez, speak with Jose Luna, after which, defendant walked to a truck parked in a nearby lot and removed an object about one-half-inch thick that he handed to Valdez. Valdez, in turn, handed a white object, a portion of what he had just received from defendant, to Luna in exchange for money. Shortly thereafter, the field team stopped Luna and recovered three glassine envelopes containing heroin. As Keane continued to watch, he observed Eric Meier approach, speak briefly with Valdez and then hand him money. Valdez then placed a white object on a parked car and walked away. Meier removed the white object and left the scene. When stopped by the field team, Meier swallowed the object. As a result, the sale to Meier was never charged. The team then returned to where Valdez and defendant were still standing and arrested both of them. One of the officers searched the truck and removed 10 glassine envelopes of heroin and an envelope of cocaine from the dashboard.
Shortly into Keane's direct examination, the court interjected and virtually took over. After it elicited Keane's position on the roof—closest to 122nd Street and Lexington Avenue—the site of the transaction, the following, illustrative of the court's pervasive interference, transpired:
[BENCH CONFERENCE HELD] ...
You're up there, tell us what you're seeing, what are you watching, tell the jurors.
At this point, the prosecutor resumed the questioning of the witness. Less than two transcribed pages of testimony later, after the prosecutor elicited from the officer that he transmitted a description of Luna to the apprehension team, the court again interrupted:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Joseph
...58, 439 N.Y.S.2d 896, 422 N.E.2d 556 ; see People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d at 67, 745 N.Y.S.2d 782, 772 N.E.2d 1140 ; People v. Melendez, 31 A.D.3d 186, 196, 815 N.Y.S.2d 551 [2006] ), and "the line is crossed when the judge takes on either the function or appearance of an advocate at trial" ( ......
-
People v. Adams
...A.D.3d 156, 825 N.Y.S.2d 200 [1st Dept.2006], lv. denied8 N.Y.3d 924, 834 N.Y.S.2d 515, 866 N.E.2d 461 [2007];People v. Melendez, 31 A.D.3d 186, 815 N.Y.S.2d 551 [1st Dept.2006], lv. denied7 N.Y.3d 927, 827 N.Y.S.2d 696, 860 N.E.2d 998 [2006];People v. Straniero, 17 A.D.3d 161, 792 N.Y.S.2d......
-
McManus v. Vann
...response to attacks by the defense counsel during summation on the credibility of a prosecution witness. See, e.g., People v.Melendez, 815 N.Y.S.2d 551, 559 (1st Dep't 2006) ("The portions of the prosecutor's summation to which defendant objected as 'vouching' were responsive to the defense......
-
People v. Parker
...not the number of questions asked [that] is the important consideration" (id. at 58; see People v Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 67; People v Melendez, 31 A.D.3d 186, 196). Further, "[e]ven if a trial judge makes intrusive remarks that would better have been left unsaid, or questions witnesses exten......
-
Judicial conduct
...Defendant failed to preserve claim for appellate review in this criminal possession of a weapon prosecution. People v. Melendez, 31 A.D.3d 186, 815 N.Y.S.2d 551 (1st Dept. 2006). In prosecution for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, court’s excessive questioning of......
-
Judicial conduct
...testimony. (Dissent claimed trial court asked nearly half questions on cross-examination of defendant’s witness.) People v. Melendez , 31 A.D.3d 186, 815 N.Y.S.2d 551 (1st Dept. 2006). Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the trial court did not become an advocate for the People, or usurp the......
-
Table of cases
...1996), §§ 15:40, 17:10, 17:80 People v. Melendez, 296 A.D.2d 424, 744 N.Y.S.2d 485 (2d Dept. 2002), §§ 5:190, 5:200 People v. Melendez, 31 A.D.3d 186, 815 N.Y.S.2d 551 (1st Dept. 2006), § 17:80 People v. Melendez , 55 N.Y.2d 445, 449 N.Y.S.2d 946 (1982), §§ 6:50, 15:30, 15:100 People v. Mel......
-
Judicial conduct
...half questions on cross-examination of defendant’s witness.) JUDICIAL CONDUCT §17:80 NEW YORK OBJECTIONS 17-16 People v. Melendez , 31 A.D.3d 186, 815 N.Y.S.2d 551 (1st Dept. 2006). Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the trial court did not become an advocate for the People, or usurp the ro......