 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Montoya10/2/2003
error. The first "joke" was brief and did not deter Montoya's counsel from proceeding with his line of questioning. The court's other statements were intended to clarify a witness's testimony, which defense counsel had misstated. See State v. Barnes, 124 Ariz. 586, 590, 606 P.2d 802, 806 (1980). They did not constitute a comment on the evidence by the trial court. Summerlin; see also State v. Wolter, 197 Ariz. 190, , 3 P.3d 1110, (App. 2000). Furthermore, the statements do not show bias on the part of the trial court affecting Montoya's defense nor could they have influenced the jury in its decision. Although the better course would have been for the trial court to have refrained from making such statements, Montoya was not deprived of a fair trial. Ebert.
Montoya's convictions and sentences are affirmed.
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Judge
CONCURRING:
J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Presiding Judge
M. JAN FLOREZ, Judge
|