AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KEITH ROBINSON, A/K/A KEITH ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant.

Although the court's participation in examining witnesses was extensive, it was within reasonable bounds and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. The court did not take on either the function or appearance of an advocate ( see People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 67; People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44).

The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing fair restrictions on cross-examination, primarily involving matters of form rather than substance, that did not interfere with defendant's defense ( see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. ROBINSON
(Jan 20, 2004)