People v. WagerPeople v. Wager
By proceeding with a suppression hearing after his motion to preclude identification testimony for lack of
The court‘s conduct did not deprive defendant of a fair trial, since the court did not take on “either the function or appearance of an advocate” (People v Arnold, 98 NY2d 63, 67 [2002]), or suggest to the jury that it had an opinion on the merits of the case. The conduct of which defendant complains on appeal consisted of the court‘s limited questioning of witnesses for the purpose of clarification (see People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944 [1978]), as well as its admonitions to defense counsel that occurred outside the hearing of the jury and did not cause any prejudice to defendant.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered defendant‘s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Sweeny, JJ.