People v. Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745 (1982)
To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must raise a specific objection at trial when the error can still be corrected.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, upholding the defendant’s conviction. The Court held that several of the defendant’s claims were not preserved for appellate review because the defendant failed to raise specific objections during the trial when the alleged errors could have been addressed. This case emphasizes the importance of timely and specific objections to preserve legal issues for appeal.
Facts
The defendant, Satloff, was convicted on multiple counts after a jury trial. During the trial, certain evidence and testimony were presented, and the defendant now claims these were admitted in error. Specifically, the defendant argued (1) failure of proof that a conversation occurred; (2) error in refusing an offer of proof from a judicial witness; and (3) that the jury verdicts were “repugnant”.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted at trial. On appeal to the Appellate Division, the conviction was affirmed. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the defendant had failed to preserve several issues for appellate review.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the defendant’s claim regarding the failure of proof that a conversation occurred was preserved for appellate review, given the absence of a specific objection at trial.
2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing the defendant’s offer of proof from a proposed judicial witness.
3. Whether the defendant’s claim that the jury verdicts were repugnant was preserved for appellate review, given the failure to object before the jury was discharged.
Holding
1. No, because the defendant failed to specifically object to the lack of proof of the conversation at trial.
2. No, the Court of Appeals did not find the trial court’s refusal to admit the testimony of the judicial witness to be in error.
3. No, because the defendant failed to raise an objection regarding the alleged repugnancy of the verdicts before the jury was discharged.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the defendant did not properly preserve the issue regarding the lack of proof of the conversation because the defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal was general and did not specifically reference this deficiency. The Court cited People v. Cona, 49 NY2d 26, 33, 2. Further, the defendant did not protest the trial court’s omission to charge the jury regarding the need for such proof. The Court noted that this argument was first raised on a motion for reargument in the Appellate Division, which is too late to preserve an issue for appeal.
Regarding the offer of proof from the judicial witness, the Court stated simply, “We cannot say that it was error to refuse the offer of proof made by defendant with respect to the testimony of the proposed judicial witness.”
Finally, concerning the claim of repugnant verdicts, the Court emphasized that the defendant failed to object before the jury was discharged. This prevented the trial court from resubmitting the case to the jury for reconsideration, which would have been the appropriate remedy had the issue been raised in a timely manner. The Court cited People v. Bruckman, 46 NY2d 1020. The Court stated, “The contention that the verdicts of the jury were ‘repugnant’ was not preserved for our review in consequence of the failure to register any protest concerning this issue prior to the discharge of the jury when the infirmity in the verdicts, if any, might have been remedied by resubmission to the jury for reconsideration of its verdicts.”