People v. familiar, 92 N.Y.2d 936 (1998)
A defendant’s claim that the prosecution violated the notice requirements for Grand Jury testimony under CPL 190.50(5) must be raised at trial or in a motion to set aside the verdict to be preserved for appellate review.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the defendant’s claim regarding a violation of CPL 190.50(5) was unpreserved because it was not raised during trial or in a motion to set aside the verdict. The defendant argued he did not receive adequate notice that the Grand Jury would question him about a specific incident. The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of raising such issues in a timely manner to allow the trial court an opportunity to address them. The Court also rejected the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Facts
The defendant was arrested and arraigned on a felony complaint for sodomy related to an incident on December 1, 1995. The People notified the defendant of their intent to present the case to a Grand Jury, and the defendant indicated his intent to testify. During his Grand Jury testimony on February 20, 1996, the defendant was questioned about both the December 1 incident and an alleged rape of the same complainant on September 2, 1995. Subsequently, the Grand Jury indicted the defendant on charges related to both incidents, and he was convicted after a jury trial.
Procedural History
After his conviction, the defendant filed a CPL 440.10 motion, claiming he received insufficient notice regarding the September 2 incident before his Grand Jury testimony, thus violating CPL 190.50(5). The trial court denied the motion after a hearing, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the case.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the defendant preserved his claim that the prosecution violated CPL 190.50(5) by failing to provide adequate notice that the Grand Jury would question him about the September 2 incident.
2. Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Holding
1. No, because the defendant did not raise the issue before or during trial, nor in his initial motion to set aside the verdict.
2. No, because the defendant received meaningful representation before the Grand Jury and at trial.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s claim under CPL 190.50(5) was unpreserved. The court emphasized that the issue was never raised before or during trial, nor in the initial motion to set aside the verdict under CPL 330.30. The first time the argument was raised was in reply papers to the CPL 330.30 motion, which was deemed insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. The court noted that there were multiple opportunities to raise the issue before the trial court, but the defendant failed to do so.
Regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the Court agreed with the lower courts that the defendant received meaningful representation, citing People v. Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-714. The Court did not elaborate on the specific reasons for this conclusion, but affirmed the lower courts’ findings. The Court also stated that the defendant’s remaining claims were either unpreserved or without merit.
The court implicitly reinforced the importance of timely raising objections and legal arguments in order to preserve them for appellate review. The failure to raise the CPL 190.50(5) issue at the trial level was fatal to the defendant’s claim on appeal.