People v. De Renzis, 51 N.Y.2d 426 (1980)
A defendant must make a timely objection to a trial court’s ruling that allegedly interferes with the right to counsel to preserve the issue for appellate review as a question of law.
Summary
De Renzis was convicted of second-degree murder. During the trial, the judge instructed the defendant and his counsel not to discuss the defendant’s testimony during recesses. Defense counsel did not object at the time. Later, counsel protested, arguing his client’s right to counsel was being violated. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, finding a denial of the right to counsel. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the failure to timely object to the trial court’s restriction on communication between the defendant and his attorney waived the right to raise the issue on appeal. The case was remitted to the Appellate Division to consider exercising its discretionary power to review the alleged error in the interest of justice.
Facts
De Renzis was on trial for the murder of Sandra Zahler.
During De Renzis’s direct testimony, the trial judge instructed De Renzis and his counsel not to discuss his testimony during recesses.
Defense counsel did not object to these instructions at the time they were given.
The following day, defense counsel requested to speak with his client and protested that his client’s right to access counsel was being interfered with.
The court initially denied the request but later reversed its ruling and allowed the consultation.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted De Renzis of second-degree murder.
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment, concluding that De Renzis had been denied his constitutional right to assistance of counsel.
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstated the conviction, and remitted the case to the Appellate Division.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant’s failure to timely object to the trial court’s instructions prohibiting communication between the defendant and his counsel during recesses waived the right to raise the issue on appeal as a question of law.
Holding
No, because to preserve a question of law for appellate review, a protest must be registered at the time of the ruling or when the court has an opportunity to change it. Counsel’s silence when the instruction was given constituted a waiver of the claim.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party claiming error must register a protest at the time of the ruling or at a subsequent time when the court has an opportunity to change it, as per CPL 470.05(2). The court distinguished this case from People v. Arthur and People v. Felder, where the absence of counsel at a critical time was determinative. Here, counsel was present and could have objected to the trial court’s instructions. The court stated that “[t]o create and preserve a question of law amendable to appellate review, a defendant in a criminal case normally must raise that issue before the court of original jurisdiction.” The court emphasized the importance of a timely protest, stating it affords the trial court an opportunity to correct the error. The Court found that the belated protest on the following day was insufficient to preserve the error related to the prior day’s restrictions because the court had already acted, and counsel’s silence implied acceptance of the court’s instruction. As the Appellate Division’s reversal was based at least in part on the June 14 rulings, the case was remitted to that court to determine whether to exercise its discretionary power to review alleged errors even absent a timely objection. The Court of Appeals explicitly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of De Renzis’s right to counsel claim, focusing solely on the procedural issue of preservation.