People v. Vale
| Decision Date | 01 November 1993 |
| Citation | 198 A.D.2d 246,603 N.Y.S.2d 515 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jason VALE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Kimberlianne Podlas, of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, Gregory C. Pavlides, and Edward Irizarry, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and SULLIVAN, RITTER and JOY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Calabretta, J.), rendered March 27, 1990, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, leaving the scene of an accident without reporting, and failure to obey a traffic control signal, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We disagree with the defendant's contention that the trial judge's questioning of defense witnesses, as well as certain comments he made during the trial, denied him a fair trial.
A trial judge is not prohibited from actively participating in the fact-finding process, although "care should be assiduously exercised lest the Trial Judge's conduct, in the form of words, actions or demeanor, does not divert or itself become an irrelevant subject of the jury's focus" (People v. De Jesus, 42 N.Y.2d 519, 523, 399 N.Y.S.2d 196, 369 N.E.2d 752; see, People v. Jamison, 47 N.Y.2d 882, 419 N.Y.S.2d 472, 393 N.E.2d 467; People v. Bell, 38 N.Y.2d 116, 378 N.Y.S.2d 686, 341 N.E.2d 246). On this record, it does not appear that the jury was prevented from arriving at an impartial verdict on the merits (see, People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 946, 403 N.Y.S.2d 892, 374 N.E.2d 1243; People v. Gonzalez, 38 N.Y.2d 208, 210, 379 N.Y.S.2d 397, 341 N.E.2d 822).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...it does not appear that the court's conduct prevented the jury from arriving at an impartial verdict on the merits (see, People v. Vale, 198 A.D.2d 246, 603 N.Y.S.2d 515). The sentence imposed for the defendant's conviction of robbery in the first degree is illegal and, therefore, must be m......
-
People v. Rupnarine
...excessive interference in the course of the trial, did not deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial ( see People v. Vale, 198 A.D.2d 246, 603 N.Y.S.2d 515). The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675). The defendant's remaining co......
- People v. Vale