People v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 01 February 1988
• Citation: 137 A.D.2d 564,524 N.Y.S.2d 304
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ronald ROBINSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 304

524 N.Y.S.2d 304

137 A.D.2d 564

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v.Ronald ROBINSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Feb. 1, 1988.

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City(Susan K. Wetzel, of counsel), for appellant.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood and Anthea H. Bruffee, of counsel, Nancy A. Streeff, on the brief), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and RUBIN, EIBER and SULLIVAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Meyerson, J), rendered April 29, 1986, convicting him of rape in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

With respect to the defendant's claim that the trial court improperly interjected itself into the proceedings, it must be initially noted that the defendant did not preserve this issue for appellate review, since he failed to apprise the court of its allegedly prejudicial conduct or to move for a mistrial ( see, People v. Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886, 453 N.Y.S.2d 399, 438 N.E.2d 1114;CPL 470.05).In any event, the record indicates that the trial court only intervened to the extent of clarifying the testimony and ensuring that the jury heard and understood the evidence presented.The role of the Trial Judge is "neither that of automaton nor advocate" and his function is to clarify the issues and to facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the proceedings ( see, People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 56, 439 N.Y.S.2d 896, 422 N.E.2d 556;People v. DeJesus, 42 N.Y.2d 519, 399 N.Y.S.2d 196, 369 N.E.2d 752;People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, 334 N.Y.S.2d 885, 286 N.E.2d 265, cert. denied410 U.S. 911, 93 S.Ct. 970, 35 L.Ed.2d 273).In the instant case, the record reveals that the trial court's conduct was proper.

Turning to the numerous claims of prejudicial error in the prosecutrix's summation, an examination of the record fails to support the defendant's claim that the summation deprived him of a fair trial.Although summation is not an unbridled debate, it is the right of counsel to comment on every pertinent matter of fact bearing upon the questions which must be decided by the jury as long as it is limited to the four corners of the evidence ( see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564).With respect to two statements contained within the...