People v. ThompsonPeople v. Thompson
While the court’s participation in examining witnesses was unduly extensive, the court did not take on “either the function or appearance of an advocate” (People v Arnold,
The court’s instructions concerning evidence of uncharged contemporaneous drug sales sufficiently cautioned the jury concerning the limited purposes for which the evidence was being admitted. Given that this evidence was probative of defendant’s accessorial liability for the charged sale (see People v Carter,