People v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 12 July 1976 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Vincent ROBINSON, a/k/a Rudolph Bruce, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William E. Hellerstein and William J. Gallagher, New York City (Mary McGowan Davis, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Frank J. Marine, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before LATHAM, Acting P.J., and COHALAN, RABIN, SHAPIRO and TITONE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 11, 1974, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree (two counts), attempted grand larceny in the third degree, assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered.
The record demonstrates that the trial court unduly interjected itself into the proceedings, assumed the role of prosecutor during cross-examination, and conveyed to the jury that it was of the opinion that the defendant was guilty (see People v. Richburg, 47 A.D.2d 909, 366 N.Y.S.2d 225; People v. Vasquez, 47 A.D.2d 864, 366 N.Y.S.2d 40; People v. Macchio, 40 A.D.2d 836, 337 N.Y.S.2d 347).
Some, but not all, of the improper interjections and statements by the court are the following:
Although it is well settled that a trial judge may and should take an active role in the examination of witnesses where such 'questioning is necessary to elicit significant facts, to clarify or enlighten an issue or merely to facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial' (People v. Mendes, 3 N.Y.2d 120--121, 164 N.Y.S.2d 401, 402, 143 N.E.2d 806, 807) that 'prerogative must not be interpreted and utilized as a license to systematically and continuously preempt and displace counsel in the examination of witnesses' or to indicate disbelief of the witnesses' testimony (People v. Matos, 46 A.D.2d 903, 904, 362 N.Y.S.2d 32, 34; People v. Baker, 44 A.D.2d 83, 353 N.Y.S.2d 505; People v. Sostre, 37 A.D.2d 574, 322 N.Y.S.2d 345)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Congilaro
...and displace counsel in the examination of witnesses or to indicate disbelief of the witnesses' testimony (People v. Robinson, 53 A.D.2d 898, 898-899, 385 N.Y.S.2d 374, 375-376; People v. Matos, 46 A.D.2d 903, 904, 362 N.Y.S.2d 32, 33; People v. Baker, 44 A.D.2d 83, 353 N.Y.S.2d 505). Convi......
-
Gayle v. LeFevre
...it may still have some support in the New York lower courts, though they do not discuss the point directly, E. g., People v. Robinson, 53 A.D.2d 898, 385 N.Y.S.2d 374 (1976); People v. Harrison, 51 A.D.2d 589, 378 N.Y.S.2d 777 (1976), the Court of Appeals seems to me to have clearly "consti......
-
People v. De Jesus
...40 N.Y.2d 933, 389 N.Y.S.2d 835, 358 N.E.2d 517; People v. Budd, 38 N.Y.2d 988, 384 N.Y.S.2d 435, 348 N.E.2d 911; People v. Robinson, 53 A.D.2d 898, 385 N.Y.S.2d 374; People v. Matos, 46 A.D.2d 903, 362 N.Y.S.2d 32). Stationed above the clamor of counsel or the partisan pursuit of procedura......
-
People v. Singletary
... ... Viewing the efforts of the Trial Judge toward clarification of defendant's muddled presentation, it cannot be said that any action taken by the court exceeded the bounds of propriety or impartiality (cf. People v. Budd, 38 N.Y.2d 988, 384 N.Y.S.2d 435, 348 N.E.2d 911; People v. Robinson, 53 A.D.2d 898, 385 N.Y.S.2d ... 374 (2d Dept. dec. July 12, 1976); United States v. Nazzaro, 2 Cir., 472 F.2d 302). Moreover, the Trial Judge's conduct was not prejudicial in light of the overwhelming proof of defendant's guilt (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 ... ...