People v. Moulton
| Decision Date | 22 February 1978 |
| Citation | 403 N.Y.S.2d 892,374 N.E.2d 1243,43 N.Y.2d 944 |
| Parties | , 374 N.E.2d 1243 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leo MOULTON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order should be affirmed.
The role of a Trial Judge in a criminal case is not merely that of an observer or even that of a referee enforcing the rules of a game (see People v. De Jesus, 42 N.Y.2d 519, 523, 399 N.Y.S.2d 196, 198, 369 N.E.2d 752, 755). In fulfillment of its broader obligation to ensure the defendant a fair and impartial trial (People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 238, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 218, 326 N.E.2d 787, 791), a court is not without power, to be exercised with judicious restraint, to keep the proceedings within the reasonable confines of the issues and to encourage clarity rather than obscurity in the development of proof (see People v. Knapper, 230 App.Div. 487, 489-490, 245 N.Y.S. 245; People v. Perrin, 224 App.Div. 546, 550, 231 N.Y.S. 557, 561, affd. 251 N.Y. 509, 168 N.E. 407).
For these purposes, the court may put appropriate questions to witnesses and, of course, make such rulings, evidentiary and otherwise, as the proper conduct of the case and the range of discretion entrusted to it for that purpose require. But it goes without saying that these functions must not be carried out in language and in a manner from which a jury will gain the impression of existence of an opinion on the part of the court as to the credibility of the testimony of any witness or the merits of any issue in the case (People v. Carter, 40 N.Y.2d 933, 934, 389 N.Y.S.2d 835, 836, 358 N.E.2d 517, 518; People v. Budd, 38 N.Y.2d 988, 384 N.Y.S.2d 435, 348 N.E.2d 911; People v. Mendes, 3 N.Y.2d 120, 164 N.Y.S.2d 401, 143 N.E.2d 806; People v. Ohanian, 245 N.Y. 227, 157 N.E. 94). Among other things relevant to the questions raised on the appeal before us, the court also must scrupulously avoid denigrating counsel and thereby undermining a party's right to his or her effective assistance (People v. De Jesus, supra, 42 N.Y.2d p. 524, 399 N.Y.S.2d p. 199, 369 N.E.2d p. 756).
In the present case, it is clear that the Trial Judge did not fully measure up to these ideals and, regrettably, we cannot say that the concern expressed by the dissenters at the Appellate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Joseph
...omitted]; see People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 67–68, 745 N.Y.S.2d 782, 772 N.E.2d 1140 [2002] ; People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 945–946, 403 N.Y.S.2d 892, 374 N.E.2d 1243 [1978] ; People v. Robinson, 136 A.D.3d 1064, 1065, 26 N.Y.S.3d 307 [2016] ), and the trial judge must be guided by th......
-
People v. Martinez
...556 ). That being said, not every departure from this principle requires reversal and a new trial (see People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 946, 403 N.Y.S.2d 892, 374 N.E.2d 1243 ), and there is room for harmless error analysis so long as the trial court's actions were not so inherently prejud......
-
People v. Tetro
...confines of the issues and to encourage clarity rather than obscurity in the development of proof" ( People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 945, 403 N.Y.S.2d 892, 374 N.E.2d 1243 [1978] ; see People v. Gonzalez, 38 N.Y.2d 208, 210–211, 379 N.Y.S.2d 397, 341 N.E.2d 822 [1975] ). Although the cour......
-
People v. Adams
...deprived of a fair trial so long as the jury is “not prevented from arriving at an impartial judgment on the merits” ( People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 946, 403 N.Y.S.2d 892, 374 N.E.2d 1243 [1978] )People v. Abdul–Khaliq, 43 A.D.3d 700, 841 N.Y.S.2d 551 [1st Dept.2007], lv. denied9 N.Y.3d......
-
Judicial conduct
...inject itself and may exercise a supervisory role at trial if neither counsel is singled out for special treatment. People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 403 N.Y.S.2d 892 (1978). Although a trial judge in a criminal case is not merely an observer or referee, the court must scrupulously avoid de......
-
Table of cases
...(2d Dept. 1991), § 10:30 People v. Morgan, 111 A.D.3d 1254, 974 N.Y.S.2d 687 (4th Dept. 2013), §§18:50, 19:60, 19:90 People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 403 N.Y.S.2d 892 (1978), §§ 17:70, 17:80 People v. Moye, 11 A.D.3d 212, 782 N.Y.S.2d 257 (1st Dept. 2004), § 5:85 People v. Moye, 12 N.Y.3d ......
-
Judicial conduct
...inject itself and may exercise a supervisory role at trial if neither counsel is singled out for special treatment. People v. Moulton , 43 N.Y.2d 944, 403 N.Y.S.2d 892 (1978). Although a trial judge in a criminal case is not merely an observer or referee, the court must scrupulously avoid d......
-
Judicial conduct
...inject itself and may exercise a supervisory role at trial if neither counsel is singled out for special treatment. People v. Moulton , 43 N.Y.2d 944, 403 N.Y.S.2d 892 (1978). Although a trial judge in a criminal case is not merely an observer or referee, the court must scrupulously avoid d......