Legal Opinion
People v. Arkim
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 31, 1992PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
In its charge, the trial court noted that the jury could consider whether any witness had a personal or professional interest in the outcome of the case. It is proper for a trial court to charge the jury that defendant is an interested witness (see, People v Ochs, 3 NY2d 54, 56). While the charge must be reasonably balanced (People v Bell, 38 NY2d 116, 120), it is for the jury to determine whether a witness is *1020interested in the outcome of a case (People v Suarez, 125 AD2d 350, lv denied 69 NY2d 750). From our review of the court’s charge in its entirety, we conclude that the court properly…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- People v. FordNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- People v. BingNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- People v. BellNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- People v. OchsNew York Court of Appeals · 1957
- People v. SuarezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- People v. TwillieAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- People v. MayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- People v. RasmussenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Arkim v. IrvinDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1998
- People v. OliveroAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998