People v. Hunte, 75 N.Y.2d 828 (1990)

A general objection to the introduction of evidence at trial is insufficient to preserve a specific claim of error for appellate review; also, a prosecutor’s summation comments must be directly related to a defendant’s failure to testify to constitute reversible error.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for second-degree murder. The primary witness against the defendant, Henry Hill, was a career criminal who had entered into cooperation agreements with federal and local authorities. The defendant objected to the introduction of Hill’s federal cooperation agreement, arguing it was irrelevant and prejudicial. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s objection was insufficient to preserve the specific claim that the agreement was inadmissible because it bolstered Hill’s credibility and gave the false impression that Hill would be severely penalized for perjury. The Court also rejected the defendant’s claim that the prosecutor improperly commented on the defendant’s failure to testify.

Facts

Richard Eaton’s body was discovered bound and gagged in an abandoned trailer on February 18, 1979. More than four years later, the defendant was indicted for Eaton’s murder. At trial, Henry Hill, the prosecution’s key witness, testified that the defendant confessed to killing Eaton because Eaton failed to pay for a cocaine deal. Hill was a career organized crime figure-turned-informant who had cooperation agreements with the Nassau County District Attorney and the Federal Organized Crime Strike Force, where he received immunity from federal prosecution in exchange for his cooperation. The federal agreement stipulated that Hill must provide full and truthful testimony and that the agreement could be nullified if he did not comply, potentially leading to prosecution for his prior crimes.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder in Kings County. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting the federal cooperation agreement and that the prosecutor made improper comments during summation. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defendant’s general objection to the introduction of the federal cooperation agreement was sufficient to preserve the specific claim that the agreement was inadmissible because it improperly bolstered the witness’s credibility and created a false impression of the consequences of perjury.

2. Whether the prosecutor’s comments during summation constituted an improper reference to the defendant’s failure to testify, thus warranting reversal of the conviction.

Holding

1. No, because the defendant’s objection at trial was not specific enough to preserve the argument made on appeal regarding the bolstering of the witness’s credibility.

2. No, because the prosecutor’s comments were ambiguous and did not directly refer to the defendant’s failure to testify, nor would they naturally and reasonably be interpreted as such by the jury.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s objection to the federal cooperation agreement was insufficient to preserve the specific argument raised on appeal. The original objection was based on the agreement being between Nassau County and Hill, and that Hill had already received state immunity. This did not alert the trial court to the argument that the agreement was irrelevant because it only promised federal immunity, or that it was unfairly prejudicial because it bolstered Hill’s credibility and implied severe penalties for perjury. Because the objection was not specific, the Court of Appeals declined to consider whether and under what circumstances federal cooperation agreements are admissible to rehabilitate a witness’s credibility.

Regarding the prosecutor’s summation, the Court found that defense counsel had the opportunity to rebut the prosecutor’s interpretation of the cooperation agreement during their own summation, and the jury had the document to examine. The court also noted the defense failed to object after the court did not instruct the jury on the matter. Additionally, the Court found that the prosecutor’s comments during summation did not directly refer to the defendant’s failure to testify, nor were they of such character as would naturally and reasonably be interpreted by the jury as an adverse comment on the defendant’s failure to take the stand, citing People v. Garcia, 51 AD2d 329, 332-333, aff’d on opn below 41 NY2d 861. The court distinguished this case from People v. McLucas, 15 NY2d 167, 170-171, where the prosecutor’s comments directly alluded to the defendant’s silence.